Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending them against several sorts of opponents, especially against the second assault of that pious, reverend and dear brother Mr. Thomas Blake / by Richard Baxter ...

The fourth Disputation. Whether any besides Regenerate Believers have a Right to the Sacraments given them by God, and may thereupon require them and receive them.

WE take it for granted, that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Pa∣rents Faith, and Dedication of themselves and theirs to God; and that they are un∣capable themselves of requiring the Sa∣craments: And therefore we shall make but little mention of them in this Dis∣pute; but manage it with special respect to the Adult, seeing the Case of Infants will be that way best resolved.

We mention [Regenerate Believers] to signifie those men who perform that Faith which is the condition of the Gospel-Promise; commonly called justifying or saving Faith.

By Sacraments we mean Baptism, or the Lords Supper.

The principal thing that needeth Explication, is the word [Right.] And it signifieth divers things according to the seve∣ral Objects and Acts to which it is related. 1. A man may give Right to a Benefit, and another receive it divers waies. Either by a Premiant Law, if he be a Superiour in Rule; or by a Te∣stament, Promise, or other Donation or Deed of Gift; or by Sale, Exchange, or other contract by way of commutation. 〈1 page missing〉〈1 page missing〉

The last is nothing to our case, as the Right is made over to us; for we could not purchase it, though the Right that Christ hath to convey it, may be fitly said to be due in Commutative Justice, as being purchased by him. The Right which we have to Be∣nefits from God, is alwayes by free Donation (for we are ca∣pable of no other;) and by a Donation that partaketh of the natu••e of a Law: This Deed of Gift is called a Promise, Testa∣ment, Covenant, &c. in Scripture (for the single promise of God, is oft called a Covenant) the Nature of this Right to Be∣nefits consisteth in the Debitum habendi, the Dueness of them to the person from another.

This Right is said to be Given, because it is it self a Benefit, as being Right to a Benefit; and the Party is said to have it.

2. Another kind of Right to Benefit, is that which acciden∣tally and indirectly ariseth from another mans Duty: As e. g. the Physician of an Hospital, commandeth his Apothecary to give so much of such a precious Cordial to every one of his Pa∣tien••s who fainteth or falls into a Lipothymie, but not to the rest: Some of the Patients that they may partake of the Cor∣dial, pretend to faint or swoun: The Apothecary doth his best to discern whether they dissemble, and cannot discern it: Here∣upon it is his duty to give it these as well as to others, because he that commanded the Administration intended not that he should know the heart, or be infallible, but should proceed ac∣cording to his best skill and judgement, or else he must do no∣thing: So that esse & apparere, & non esse & non apparere, is all one to him. The dissembling of the Patient doth accidentally occasion, or cause it to be his duty to give him the Cordial: And when it is become his duty to Give it, the Patient may so far be said to have Right to it, as that he may justifie his demand before any Physitians that are unacquainted with his dissimu∣lation, and the Apothecary had truly a Right or Power to give it, and may justifie it before any. Yet this is but improperly called A Right to the Cordial, and properly it is but to be the Object of the Just Action of the Administer. For though the Apothecary had warrant to administer it upon a claim, though wrong, yet the Patient had no Right to warrant his claim; and

therefore his claim it self being unjust for want of Antecedent Right, it could not give him a proper subsequent Right, though in the common judgement of undiscerning men, he had Right.

3. A kind of Right in a Benefit may be conveyed by Actual Physical Application, without moral conveyance of Title: As if I cast a Garment over a mad man that strips himself naked, while it is on him, he may (but improperly) be said to have Right in it: which is but properly non inju••te uti; it is no inju∣stice in him to use it while you perm••t him. But this is no∣thing to our present Case. 1. Because it is not an Antecedent Right to the thing, but a subsequent Right in the thing when they have it; and is no ground of claim before hand, the partie ha∣ving no Antecedent Title: But our Case concerneth an Ante∣dent Title; or else the question would be only whether Sacra∣ments be Null to such when they have them. 2. Because this is not proper Right. 3. Because even this non injustè possidere, never falls out to be the Case of the unsanctified unbelieving Soul; because it is not bare providential disposal that ca∣steth Sacraments upon him like the rain from Heaven, but it is his own unjust claim and seeking that antecedeth and caus∣eth his possession, so that we may dismiss this from our further enquiry. And there is (that I remember) no other way of conveying Right to Benefits which can possibly concern our Case, than these above-mentioned: and therefore I may sup∣pose that here is a sufficient Enumeration. If any would make a Contract or mutu••l Covenant to be a different way, they are deceived: For as our covenanting Act conferreth not the Be∣nefit, but is only a condition of Gods Collation, (else a man should give it to himself.) so the covenanting act on Gods part is by the fore-described free Donation; and it is only by the standing promise, which is not altered when we consent, though only then it become effectual, because that consent is the condition of its efficacy.

So much concerning the Right to Benefits, and the debitum ha∣bendi, or antecedent Title.

The next kind of R••ght is that which respecteth not Bene∣fits, but our own Act••ons. And this Right or Justness of Acti∣ons,

is 1. Of the Actions of an Officer or Administrator, which is Autoritas agendi, and proceedeth from a Commission, or a com∣mand which is equivalent. 2. The Actions of a subject as such in Obeying; which is Officium, or Debitum agendi, commonly cal∣led Duty. This resulteth from the preceptive part of every Law. And so every man hath a Right to do his Duty; which strictly is but to say, It is right that he do it, or it is due from him to God, or he is obliged to it. 3. The third sort of Actions are such as are neither commanded nor forbidden, but either the Law medleth not with them, and so negatively permitteth them, or else it expresly maketh them indifferent, and so positively permitteth them, such we say a man may rightfully do; which is indeed neither necessarily, nor sinfully; but only the things are Licita, such as may be done.

To apply these to our present Case; It is evident that none of these are meant in our present Question. For 1. the Que∣stion is not, whether it be lawful to a Minister to give the Sa∣crament to any that is unregenerate: For, supposing that they require it, this is out of doubt; and we may justly (though with due limitations and conditions) excite them to desire it, while we know them not to be unregenerate, or perswade them to do it with Faith and Repentance. 2. Nor yet is it any of our Question, whether the Action of Receiving be com∣manded to any that are unregenerate, and so be his Duty? Though this Question being as necessary to our End, as that propounded, I shall also speak anon to the decision of it. 3. Nor is it any of our question, whether Sacramental Reception be meerly quid licitum, or an indifferent thing to them: For this is not pretended.

Our Question is then 1. of the Benefit directly, and of the Duty but consequentially. 2 and of the Debitum habendi dire∣ctly, and but consequently of the Debitum agendi. 3. and of the Title which is the foundation of Right, or of an Antecedent Right to the benefit, even a Right that may warrant before God a claim; and not of a meer subsequent Right in it; much less of a Possession without proper Right, or of a being an Object of the just Action of another. 4. It is of a Right given by God,

and not of any thing which they may call a Right that cometh another way.

Before I come to the Negative of the Question, which I shall maintain, I shall lay down what is easily granted the Opponent in these few Propositions following.

Prop. 1. God hath bestowed Christ with his Benefits, Justifi∣cation, Adoption, Sanctification, and Right to Sacraments; Conditionally upon all (at least, that hear that word:) Even In∣fidels, Heathens, Persecutors of Christianity, that never had a thought of accepting Christ.

Prop. 2. Ministers may and must give the Sacraments to many Professors of saving Faith and Repentance, who have not the Faith or Repentance which they profess, supposing that these shall require the Sacraments at their hands.

Prop. 3. These Hypocrites may have right to the Sacraments in foro Ecclesiae; that is, Ecclesiâ Judice: which is no more than this, that their pretence of a true Right before God, is such as the Church cannot judge to be false, and therefore is bound to admi∣nister the Sacraments to them, as to men who seem to have that proper right, as far as they can judge.

Prop. 4. If it shall after be discovered that the party had no proper right, but that the Church was mistaken in their judge∣ment, it will not follow that therefore the external Baptism was or is Null, or to be re-administred, though it reacheth not its main ends.

Prop. 5. Infidels, Heathens, Turks, are obliged to seek to be baptized, and to receive the Lords Supper; that is, to become true Believers, and then to seek and receive the Sa∣craments.

Prop. 6. When the Church administreth Sacraments to Hy∣pocrites, as they do but their duty, so God approveth their action, as knowing they do their duty: And therefore so far as that comes to the improper Right Coram Ecclesià, is also Coram Deo. As in the foresaid Comparison: If the Physitian knew his P••tient to dissemble, that he might have his Cordial, and the Apothecary did not know it, the Physitian will ju∣stifie his Apothecary in his Administration. So will God justifie the foresaid Administration of his Sacraments, and

acknowledge the Hypocrite to be the Object of our just tradi∣tion.

For the Negative; Prop. 1. God hath not given by promise, Testament, or any other Deed of Gift, a proper Title to Sacra∣ments to any that have not saving Faith and Repentance (and their seed) which Coram Deo, will warrant them to require and receive them.

Prop. 2. God hath not commanded or allowed any that have not saving faith, to seek or receive the Sacraments, in that con∣dition; but hath made it the order of their Duty, first to Repent and Believe, and then to seek and receive the Sacra∣ments.

These two Propositions I shall now briefly, but sufficiently prove. The first hath in it three parts, 1. That God hath not made any Deed of Gift of Sacraments or right to Sacraments to any that are short of saving Faith, (save the seed of the faithful) 2. That therefore such have no title to Sacraments Coram Deo, that can properly be so called. 3. That therefore they cannot lawfully Claim and Receive them (though if they claim them we may lawfully Administer them) To avoid confusion, I shall take these distinctly.

1. That God hath made no Promise or Deed of Gift of Sa∣craments or Right to them, to any that are short of saving faith, or on any lower Condition than saving Faith, I prove:

Arg. 1. There is none such to be found in Scripture. There∣fore God hath made none such. We have long expected the pro∣duction of any such Gift or Promise; and yet none is produced: Which is likely would have been if it could have been found. And if it be not in Scripture, it is nowhere.

Arg. 2. If the Promise or grant of Right to Sacraments be made on any Condition besides saving faith, then 1. either on the Condition of the Profession of that Faith; 2. or on the Con∣dition of a real inferiour faith; or 3. on Condition of the Profession of that inferiour faith. But none of these three. Er∣go.

The Enumeration will be acknowledged sufficient by them that we have now to deal with. And 1. That the bare profes∣sion of saving Faith is never made the condition of any Pro∣mise

or Deed of Gift, by which a Title to Baptism is conveyed, appeareth, 1. In that none such are found in all the Scripture: God nowhere saith, If thou wilt but profess or say th••t thou be∣lievest, thou shalt be baptized, or have Right to Sacraments (though the Church must administer them on that Profession) 2. Else God should command a man to lye, or justifie him in it, and make a lye the condition of his mercies. Though every duty be not the condition of Justification, yet every such condition is a duty, and every duty is commanded; and God doth not Com∣mand any man to lye, or to profess to be what he is not, or do what he doth not, or have what he hath not. Much less will he make this the condition of his promises.

Object. God commandeth both Believing and Profession; therefore Profession is part of their duty; and their sin is not that they Profess, but that they do not Believe.

Answ. But God so connexeth these duties together, that the later is a sin, and no duty, if it keep not its place, and be per∣formed without the former. If a man tell a lye by speaking any good which he never thought, its true that God would have had him both think it and speak it, and then it would have been no lye; but he would not have him speak it before he think it; for then its a lye: And you cannot say that his sin is only in not thinking it, and not in speaking it, which was part of his duty: For it was both his sin, Not to think it, and to speak it when he did not think it; and spe••king it was not his duty, save upon presupposal that he think it, or it was not in any other order to be performed. The same is here the case between Believing and professing to Believe.

3. God maketh nothing the matter of Duty, or the Condi∣tion of his Gifts, but what hath some moral worth in it which may shew it fit to be well pleasing to him. But the bare verbal Profession of that which is not in the heart, hath no such Mo∣ral worth in it as may make it pleasing in his eyes. Er∣go.

2. And then for an Inferiour Faith, that this is not the con∣dition of Gods Promise, I have fully proved in another Dis∣putation: Moreover, 1. No such promise can be produced out of the Word of God: If it could, its l••ke we should have had

it ere now. 2. The promises are expresly made on the condition of saving faith; therefore not of any other. Of this more in the following Arguments. Only here I add, that as to the Admini∣stration of Seals, no man can know the sincerity or reality of an inferior kind of Faith any more than of a saving Faith.

3. And then for the third, viz. The Profession of a Dogmati∣cal or other inferior Faith, it can be no condition. 1. Because the faith it self professed is none; therefore the profession of it i•• none. 2. The profession of a saving faith is none: Much less of a lower faith.

Observe in all this, that when I mention a Dogmatical Faith, I take it in Mr. Blake's sense, and the sense that its commonly taken in, viz. for an assent that comes short of that which justi∣fieth; and not as some of the Ancients did, who called justify∣ing Faith by the name of Dogmatical Faith, as dist not from Mi∣raculous Faith, because they ordinarily placed Justifying Faith in Assent: So Cyril, and John Hierosol. Cateches. 5. pag. (mihi) 43. distinguisheth Faith into D••gmatical, which is saving, and into that which is of Grace, by which Miracles are wrought. He means by Grace the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit. And so some Protestants too. Leg•• D. Alard. Vaek. Comment. in Sym∣bol. Apost. Proleg. Cap. 5. pag. 20.21.

Argum. 3. It is one and the same Covenant, Testament, or Deed of Gift, by which God bestoweth Christ, and Right to Sacraments, and that on the same conditions. But the Covenant or Testament bestoweth himself only on the condition of saving Faith. Therefore it bestoweth right to Sacraments only on con∣dition of saving Faith.

That there is any Covenant distinct from that one Covenant of Grace, Mr. Blake disowneth as a fancy that never entred into his thoughts: pag. 125. That this one Covenant or Testament gi∣veth Right to Christ and to Sacraments upon the condition of one and the same faith, is evident: 1. Because the word distin∣guisheth not; therefore in this case we may not distinguish. It offereth Christ and Sacraments to men on these terms, if they will believe; but it doth not give us the least hint that by believing is meant two several sorts of faith, whereof one is of necessity to right in Christ, & the other to right to Sacraments. Mr. Blake that

so abhorreth the imputing of equivocal terms to the Scripture, I hope will not feign them to speak so equivocally. If the Word had ever said, It is such a kind of faith that is the condition of Right to Christ; and such a different kind of Faith that is the condition of Right to Sacraments; then we might have war∣rantably so distinguished our selves; but there is no such thing. Yea, the Scripture maketh it plain that it is saving faith which it meaneth, that is pre-requisite to Baptism, as is already manifest from Acts 16.30, 31, 32, 33. & 16 14, 15. & 15 7, 8, 9. & 8.37.2.38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 Mark 16.16, &c. To which add Mat. 28.19, 20. Go ye therefore and Disciple me all Nations, Bap∣tizing them in the name &c. Those and only those that are Dis∣cipled, must be baptized. But none are Discipled Internally but true Believers, nor visibly but the professors of a true (saving) belief (and their seed) Therefore no others should be baptized.

The Minor (which only requireth proof) is thus proved. None are Disciples but those that take or profess to take Christ for their chief Teacher and Saviour. But all that do so heartily, or profess to do so, have or profess to have saving faith: There∣fore none but those that have or profess to have saving faith, are Disciples.

The Major is undeniable. The Minor is clear. If he that heartily takes Christ for his chief Teacher and Saviour, have not saving Faith, there is no such thing. It is he that will not hear the Prophet that shall be cut off; and he that will hear him that shall live. And he that heartily takes him for his chief Teacher, is willing to hear him and learn of him: And he will give rest to the souls of all that will come to him, and that learn of him, as Matth. 11.28, 29.

Argum. 4. God giveth Right to Sacraments to none but those to whom he giveth Right to Remission of sin. But he giveth Right to Remission of sin to none but true Belie∣vers: Therefore he giveth (p••oper) Right to Sacraments to none other.

The Major Mr. Blake wonders at, that all men should have right to the End or Fruit of the Ordinance, who have right to the Ordinance; when it is the right use and Improvement of Ordinances that must give right to the End. But 1. the form

of a Sacrament is Relative, and the nearest end essential to it; and therefore all ends are not separable, and at a distance. 2. God giveth no man Right to use Sacraments contrary to his Insti∣tution: But the ends to which the Sacraments are instituted, is to seal up Remission of sin already given him by the promise: therefore he giveth Right to Sacraments to none but those to whom he giveth Right to Remission of sin. The Major is proved in the former Disputation. Object. But our Divines say that Baptism is not only for the Remission of sins past, but of future sins. Answ. 1. True: but still including sins past. 2. It is the review or consideration of Baptism which they say is for the strengthening of our faith concerning the Remission of sin, daily as we commit it. 3. If any of them do make Baptism to be effectual to the Remission of sin hereafter, when present sin is not remitted, they suppose this to be by accident, when contrary to the intent and Institution of God, it is misused at the present, but rightly considered of in believing reviews.

He that hath not Right to be baptized for the obsignation of Remission of sin, hath no Right given him by God to Bap∣tism. For God hath appointed no other Baptism. There are in∣deed certain distant benefits of the Sacraments which are suspen∣ded upon a distant improvement of them. But a saving partici∣pation in Christ and pardon of sin is a present benefit, which the person must be qualified for the obsignation of before he have Title by Gods gift to that Sacrament.

Ar. 5. Ad hominē. It is but few Protestants that I know of, that seem adversaries to our present Assertion; and those few also do grant it: Mr. Blake saith pa. 124 of Sacraments: [

so that I con∣ceit no promise of these ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them.

] And when I supposed that he had thought there was a distinct promise of Church Priviledges upon condition of a faith not justifying, or saving, he tels us of some body (I know not who) that said I ra∣ther feigned this of him, then found it in him, and himself addeth [

And I profess I know no man whose brain ever hatched or ven∣ted such a crotchet] we are therefore here secure (or should be one would think) from Mr. Blakes opposition.

If this much se∣cure us not, see him p. 122. where (having thrown by my distin∣ctions

as confusion, pag. 120. and my positions as not looking toward the business, (i. e. for ought he could see) and having confuted me by my own words, pag. 121. before he understood them) he brings me in thus stating the Question [

Whether these men be in Covenant with God, as to Gods actual en∣gagement to them; so far as that Gods Promise is in force for conveying actual Right to them as to the promised Blessings? And so whether it be a mutual Covenant; and both parties be actually obliged? And thus I say, that wicked men are not in Covenant with God; that is, God is not in Covenant with them, neither have they any Right to the main Blessings given by the Covenant, viz. Christ, Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glory.] To this I annexed, (which he leaves out) Nor to the common Blessings of this Covenant; for they are given by the same Covenant, and on the same conditions as the special Bles∣sings: so that though they may have Right to them at present on the Ground of Gods present collation, or trusting them with them (as a servant hath in his Masters stock,) yet have they no Right by Covenant—] Mr. Blake replyeth.

1. That he knoweth no man that hath spoke so much to prove the affir∣mative as I. But where? He will tell us Logically thus. [

So long as they break not the Covenant Engagement in which he con∣fesseth they have obliged themselves, God stands engaged to them for the greatest spiritual blessings. But according to him they break not Covenant till they arrive at final impenitency and unbelief.

] Rep. 1. I said in another book, that as the new Law of faith is cal∣led Gods Covenant, so no man but final unbelievers, doth so break that Covenant, as to be the subject of its proper actual commination, i.e. penal censure; or that its penalty should thereby become his due (the penalty being a peremptory remediless ex∣clusion from all hope). And what doth Mr. Bl. but make me say in an unexplained general, [that they break not Covenant till they arrive at final unbelief &c] 2. I said over and over that they broke their own covenant engagements, though they did not so far vio∣late Gods Covenant as to incur the foresaid curse: And what doth Mr. Blake but intimate that I teach [that they break not the Covenant engagement, in which they oblige themselves.] Yet he stops when he should have repeated these words in his Minor,

perceiving it a cleanlier way to let the Reader infer them. Ah sor∣ry Tempter that could procure such a volume of so worthy a man, to abound with so many passages of this nature, that are such strangers and enemies, not only to truth, and common equity, but even to that Ingenuity that should be manifested to an ene∣my. But this on the by. His second answer is, [

That therefore be∣fore mentioned which he cals the great Question between him and me, is no question at all! It were madness to affirm that which with those limits he thus denies.

] See Reader, though I was so Mad as to prove the Affirmative of this Question which I deny, yet Mr. Blake is not. And may I not now venture to conclude that thus far we are agreed.

Well then, if Mr. Blake never dreamed of a promise of God, made to a dogmatical faith, giving them right to Sacraments, nor thus actually engaging God to them, let us stay a little here to enquire what it is then that in his Judgement gives them Ti∣tle and Right. pag. 141. he brings me in saying, [But if you speak only of Covenant. Right to Baptism coram Deo, by his gift of Covenant, then I make them of the same extent. And he answereth, I cannot tell what other Covenant-Right to speak of, &c.] So oft∣times he saith that they have a Right or Title from God by his Covenant. What should the sence of this mysterie be? Doth Gods Covenant give it them, and yet is there no Promise of it to such as they? Nor is God actually obliged to give them the bles∣sings of the Covenant? Certainly this cannot be. For 1. God hath no Covenant-act on his own part, but that which we commonly call his Promise or Testament. He saith [he that believeth shall be saved, &c.] and [If thou believe thou shalt be saved: If thou receive Christ thou shalt have power to be the Son of God] And when the Soul consenteth it is a mutual Covenant, without any further deed of Gift from God: so that it is this same Promise which is conditional, and whose condition is our acceptance of the gift, which gives right to the Benefit when the condition (our acceptance) is performed; that is, when our hearts consent. And so God hath no Covenant act on his part to convey a Title, but his Promise: therefore if there be no Promise of Title to Sacraments, there is sure no Covenant-gift from God of such a Title, when they are the same. Can Mr. Blake shew a Covenant

of God ex parte sui distinct from this Promise? Why then is it not done?

But p. 122. Did ever a man speak of an absolute tie in a condi∣tional covenant, whether the conditions are performed or no] It seems then that it is but a conditional tie that he speaks of all this while. But whats that to the conveying of Right? The efficacy is sus∣pended while the condition is unperformed: or else it were not a Condition. If God had conditionally by his Covenant given Title to Sacraments, that Covenant could give no Title, till the condition were performed. So that it is not a conditio∣nal Promise or covenant, till performance of the condition, that can give right. And yet Mr. Blake oft saith, that God giveth a Covenant-Right to such as (he seems to maintain himself) per∣form not the condition. 2. But for all this, I still say our very faith or acceptance of Christ in the Covenant of God is our performing the condition. And therefore (which its sad should be an egregious affected piece of nonsence in the eyes of any Divines) our very heart covenanting, is our performance of the condition of the covenant of God, that is, God offereth to be our God, and Christ our Saviour, if we will accept him by con∣sent. Our hearts consent and say, Lord I am willing. And this is our heart covenanting; that ties the marriage knot: and this was the condition of Gods Promise, or part in the Covenant. And therefore every true sincere Covenanter or Believer, as he per∣formeth by consenting the condition of his first right and Posses∣sion, so he hath immediately the said Right and Possession: A marriage Covenant is such a performance also, as giveth present Title and Right. We are members of Christ, Pardoned, Adopted, as soon as ever we consent to the terms of the Covenant, that is, do believe. Its a poor put off for Mr. Blake to tell me, that [we are ofter said to be espoused to Christ, then married to him.] For what although the solemnization of the Nuptials with all the Church in one body be reserved to the last day, doth it fol∣low that each particular soul is not married to Christ before? Doth not Scripture expresly affirm it? Do any Divines deny to question it? What matter is it then which is oftner mentioned, wh••le both are mentioned, and both true?

But yet it cannot be his meaning that a conditional promise

gives Right to Baptism: At least to men of his inferior faith For he expresly saith, that he [conceits no Promise of these Or¦dinances made to such a faith]. He doth therefore sure conceive (for all the former words) that there is some other way of gi∣ving Title by Gods Covenant, or by God another way than by Covenant. And pag. 124. He expresseth it thus. [But an actual investiture of every such Believer in them]. Surely if we can but understand these words, we have his sence. I would not fall a rack∣ing this word Investiture, to make it confess its signification, if I knew where or which way else, besides in this one poor word, in all his two Volums to find his meaning. But if it must lie in one word, and that not obvious to all understandings, it con∣cerneth us to enquire what that word doth signifie. The word Investiture applyed to meer Physical subjects, signifieth but a meerly Physical alteration, and that can give no Title or Right: and therefore no doubt, that is none of his meaning. When the word is taken in a civil sense, it is usually forma concedendi feu∣di, but sometime applied to other benefits, and it is commonly distinguished into that which is Ceremonial, Abusive, or Im∣proper, and that which is Natural and Proper. The former is preparatory to Actual Possession of the Benefit: and is said by Lawyers to be equal to, or much like to the Judges De∣creeing a mans Possession, which is not a corporal putting him into possession: and the form usually runs thus, Investio te hoc annulo, ense, &c. Here the thing that he is invested by, is the ring, sword, &c. but the thing that he is invested of, is not them, but the Benefit which they signifie, and that but preparatorily, as to corporal possession of the thing it self: and this is used to be done in the face of a Court, or some eminent witnesses. This is Investi∣ture, abusivè sic dicta. 2. The latter (Investitura vera & propriè dicta) is the very delivery of Possession of the Benefit it self, which is done (say the Civilians) many wayes. As 1. When the foresaid Ceremonial Investiture is not at a distance as before, but in ipso feudo, vel oculis subjecto. 2. Si Dominus propriè investiendo utatur verbo tradendi, potest Vasallus propriâ autoritate ingredi pos∣sessionem vacuam. 3. Si Dominus coram paribus Curiae, &c. juberet beneficiariam ingredi possessionem feudi. 4. Si beneficiarius per Do∣minum ipsum aut jussu ejus per alium introducatur in possessionem feudi.]

Now which of these is it that Master Blake here meaneth?

1. The Sacrament of Baptism delivered upon Gods com∣mand upon the ground of his preceding Promise, is his true, proper Investiture of the Believer in the pardon of sin, and Membership of Christ and his Church. These therefore being quoad ipsam possessionem, delivered up by this sacred sign, it fol∣lows that it is only those that have antecedent Title to these Be∣nefits (Christ and Pardon) that can receive the Investing sign to that use and end, and to no other separated uses is it instituted by God. And as to the distant Benefits (the Kingdom of Glory, &c.) The Sacraments are a ceremonial Investiture as to them, and therefore should be applyed to none that hath not a prece∣dent Title to those distant benefits, Ecclesià judice; or should be claimed and received by no other. Nor is it proper to call that an Investitu•••• of the sign it self, which is it self an Investi∣ture of another thing. We use to say, by this Ring, Sword, &c. I invest thee of that Benefit, but not by this Ring I invest thee of this Ring.

2. Our Question now in hand being not of an Investiture of the signified Benefit, but of a Title to the sign it self, it is ap∣parent that it cannot be the first sort of Investiture, viz. Ceremo∣nial: For then it must be by some other Ceremony that we are invested of this Ceremony. And what that other Ceremony is by which God doth invest men of Baptism, no man can tell, nor I think hath gone about to tell.

3. It must be therefore the latter sort of Investiture, or none, viz. the Natural and true: but that presupposeth a Title by some antecedent Promise or Gift: and is but the means of delivering possession of that which men had right to before; or of giving the jus in re, to them that had the jus ad rem. Now our Question is not of Possession, but of Title, or the jus ad rem, which is an∣tecedent to Investiture, and may warrant a claim.

4. And if you should say that this Investiture doth of it self confer Title to it self, you would speak a contradiction, the Title being antecedent to the right (as being its foundation) and the right (ad rem) antecedent to the Proffession which the Investiture gives. Or if you feign an immediate donation to be conco∣mitant with the Investiture, or closely antecedent, you must

prove it, and shew what it is. It is most certain that it must be somewhat, that is, Signum voluntatis Divinae de Debito habendi, that must confer on us a Title: a meer providential disposal is no such thing; for that is no civil, but a Physical Investiture, and signifieth not the will of God de Debito, but only de Eventu, and therefore of it self is no Title: (Of which see the Lancashire Ministers against the engagement, at large.) It must then be a Testament or some Deed of Gift, which in the Gospel goeth under the name of the Promise, which before this possession must give the Title: But a Promise in the present case, as made to the dogmatical Believer, is denyed by the Opponent. A new immediate donation concurrent with the Investiture (so called) there is none. God doth neither then say, I give thee Title to this Sacrament, Or I deliver it to thee absolutely; but only hath long ago in his Promise said, that which is equivalent, conditio∣nally; so that he hath no new donation but only the old one of his Promise, newly applyed by his Minister; and the condition of that Promise is a saving faith, and, not another sort of faith.

There remaineth therefore but two acts or wayes of this pro∣per Investiture, which can be pretended: And that is 1. A com∣mand to them to take Possession (which is not pretended) or to claim it of the Minister. 2. And a command to the Minister as Gods Agent to deliver it to such a man. And for the first, it will fall under our further consideration anon, where we shall shew that there is no such command. Nor can any command give Title to a Benefit, but what hath the nature of Gift, as well as a command. If then there be no Promise or Gift, there is no right to the benefit: commands as such do only oblige to duty. And as for the command to Ministers to deli∣ver the Sacraments. 1. It is in Scripture commanded them that they baptize them that Repent and Believe (and their seed) but no others: Therefore whereas by Reason and Scripture-exam∣ple and general Rules, it is made their duty to baptize, or give the Lords Supper to Professors, that is as they seem Believers; seeing God never intended to make us the searchers of hearts, therefore we must follow the common Rule of humane converse, to take mens words about the secrets of their hearts,

till they utterly forfeit the credit of their words. But to them that profess not truly to believe, we may not give them. 2. Nor may we give them as from God to men under the bare notion of Professors but as Believers. I mean, that in our invitation and offer, we may not tell men [All that profess to believe, come to this Sacrament, for its Gods will that you have title to it,] nor may we manage the ordinance in the terms of our prayers or Delivery, as to meer Professors, but as to Believers, and so must we call them, as in probability, and from their profession esteeming them such.

3. As it is only true Believers that we must Call to receive them, so if any other come they come contrary to our Call, and so contrary to the word that God put into our mouths, and to his Will; and therefore they have hereby no Title. Its true that it becomes our duty to deliver them the Sacrament, but that is ac∣cidentally, on supposition of their unjust claim, and hyhocritical or false profession: & ex propria calpa nemini debetur commodum. God imployeth not heart searchers in his Administrations; but he offereth his Ordinances only to heart-searchers and on heart-conditions: And therefore the Pretenders of such conditions may warrant our delivery; but they can never warrant or justifie their own claim, or false pretence in order thereto: And therefore they being not the people that God offered his Bene∣fits to, and called to receive them (unless by turning true Believers) it follows that they have not Gods consent to re∣ceive it; and therefore there is no Gift from him. As the Mi∣nister doth in the Word, so doth he in the Sacraments: In the Word we are to offer Jesus Christ to all that will accept him by a living faith, that is, to offer him to all that he may be so accept∣ed, and on condition of such Acceptance, may be theirs. But if some unsound Professors shall in their way, lay hold of him, and say, he is theirs, it is they that make the false appli∣cation, and not either God or we. So if we are to comfort any afflicted conscience, we are no heart-searchers, and therefore cannot say to any, Thou art a Believer, and therefore this com∣fort belongs to thee; but we can only deliver them this Major Proposition [This Comfort belongeth to all true Believers] and this conditional conclusion [If thou be a true Believer, it belongs to thee:] But it is the person himself that must affirm [I am a true

believer] and so must make the conclusion absolute. And then if the Assumption be untrue, it is his own, and not Gods or ours. So we are to offer the Sacraments (and Christ in the Sacraments) to all true penitent Believers. This is our Duty. If any now will step forth and take the Lords Supper among the faithful, it is himself that maketh the sinful application: And if any will say [Baptize me, for I do heartily repent and believe,] If this be false, it is he that makes the false Application. And therefore here is no Divine donation can be proved; nor any consent of God to his claim; though we are justifiable for the actual giving it upon that claim. So that here is no such In∣vestiture that can be proved which conveyeth any Title, or war∣ranteth any claim: There is only a command to us to offer it to true Believers, and to give it by actual delivery to such Be∣lievers, and to believe them that say they are such Believers, till we have just cause to discredit them, or can sufficiently disprove them. So that actual delivery upon such a false profession of theirs, is morally no Gift, nor Investiure, but only such as is meerly Physical, as to any collation of Right, the application being by themselves, who can give themselves no Right, and not by God, who never gave consent to the claim.

And thus I have proved and vindicated the first part of my first Proposition, concerning the Sacraments considered as Be∣nefits [that God hath not made any gift of them to any but true Believers.] The two next I need to say less to, because enough is said on the by, in vindicating the former.

The second was, that [seeing God hath given no Title, therefore they may not lawfully claim them.] And this is clear from the common Laws of Propriety, that no man may lay claim to that which he hath no Title to. He that would not be questioned as an Usurper, must look to his Right before he take possession or use.

Object. What another is commanded to give me, that I may lawfully claim as my Right.

Answ. He is commanded to give it Believers, and to you if you will profess that you are a Believer; but withall you are forbidden to profess it if it be false, and therefore that is a suffi∣cient Bar against your claim, Coram Deo in the Judgement of

God; though its true that Ecclesia Judice, your claim is such even upon a false profession which they cannot deny. If they be commanded to give it you if you claim, and you not com∣manded and warranted to claim it, then their duty of giving it upon such claim, will prove no title in you before God.

The next part of my Proposition doth so clearly follow from what is said, that I need not say any more to prove it, It is your sin to claim and receive that Sacrament, which the Minister may deliver to you upon your claim without sin; be∣cause you must judge by heart-evidence, but the Minister cannot.

But whereas Mr. Blake doth make it so strange that a Minister may lawfully administer that Sacraments to a man which Coram Deo, he hath no right to (against which he is so confident) I would demand of him whether Coram Deo, or Deo Judice, a man have true title to Sacraments without any faith at all, I mean a downright Infidel or Heathen? If he say, No; then he yieldeth all the cause. For if this Heathen will so far play the Hypocrite as to profess a Dogmatical Faith (as he saith) or a saving faith (as the Church saith) then he will confess that it is the Ministers duty to give him the Sacrament upon his claim; and so he must give it to a man that Deo Judice hath no true right to it. But if he say that such an Heathen hath right to it Deo Judice, I shall not stand now any further to confute him, then 1. to challenge him to prove his Title: And 2. to advise him to be cautelous how he undertaketh to justifie his title and claim at the barr of God when the reckoning comes, and these matters must be reviewed.

And thus I have done with the first Proposition, which speaks of Sacraments ut Beneficia, and proved that God hath not given, by Promise, Testament, or any Deed of Gift, a proper title to Sacraments to any but sound believers (and their seed) which will warrant them to claim and receive them.

2. The next thing to be done, is to speak of the Receiving of Sacraments as it is Officium, a Duty, constituted by some com∣mand of God; and the Proposition is that [God hath not com∣manded or allowed any that have not saving faith to claim and re∣ceive the Sacraments in that condition, but hath made it the ne∣cessary

order of their duty, first to repent and believe, and then to claim and receive the Sacraments.

Arg. 1. If no man is commanded or warranted to receive the Sacraments without a Profession of true faith and repentance, then not without that faith and repentance it self. But the antecedent is true; therefore so is the consequent.

The Antecedent is proved in the other Disputations. The Consequence is plain: For no man is commanded or warranted to lye, or make a false profession: But to profess that Faith and Repentance which they have not, is to lye, or make a false profession (at least if it be not a profession limited) There∣fore, &c.

I have proved before that such a Profession is not only pre-re∣quisite to Sacraments, but also that the very reception of them doth contain it.

Arg. 2. No command can be produced in Scripture, which will warrant a man to seek and receive the Sacraments without a saving faith: Therefore there is no such command. I shall pass by all other Arguments (because they may be gathered from what I have said already) and shall only enquire into the commands which are pretended, because the proof lieth on them.

Obj. Every Jew and his children were commanded to be circum∣cised: Therefore the impenitent, hypocrites, &c. are commanded to receive the Sacraments. As Gen. 17.14.

Answ. 1. They were not commanded to be circumcised whe∣ther they consented to the Covenant or not, but Circumcision was the token of the Covenant, and a seal of the righteousness of that faith which they had or professed to have, being yet un∣circumcised, Gen. 17.11, 12. Rom. 4.11. That is, the Parent for himself and his child professed a true consent to the Covenant. And this Consent I have before proved to be saving faith, or inseparable from it. And so Covenanting was then as strictly re∣quired as Circumcision.

Object. But every male was to be cut off that was not circum∣cised.

Answ. I shall not now stand to enquire into the meaning of that cutting off: But whatever it was, it is certain that there

is as much threatned to them that did not covenant with the Lord.

Obj. But that cannot import a sincere Covenanting in sa∣ving Faith; For then how great a part of the people must be cut off?

Answ. It plainly speaks of the profession of sincerity in Cove∣nanting, 2. Chron. 15.12 13. And they entred into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart, and with all their soul, that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Obj. But (saith Mr. Blake) though they covenant to believe savingly, yet they do not profess that they do so; and it is not covenanting that proves men in a state of justification and salva∣tion, but keeping the Covenant.

Answ. He that covenanteth from that time forward to take the Lord for his God sincerely, doth by that Covenant at pre∣sent express that he consenteth to have the Lord for his God, (upon the Covenant terms:) but he that professeth such a Con∣sent, doth eo nomine profess saving faith, which is nothing else but Assent, and that consent producing affiance. There is no act proper to saving faith, if Consent be not. 2. As therefore faith, which is (or is inseparably joyned with, as others confess) the hearts consent doth justifie a man before he express it in works of actual obedience, so it is but the same thing which we say, that heart-covenanting, or consent, doth justifie, or prove a man ju∣stified, before he do any further keep that Covenant by any positive effects of it. For it is the performance of the conditi∣ons of Gods promise that first prove us justified; and God pro∣miseth Christ and Justification with him to all that believe, or re∣ceive Christ, or accept him as offered. And this receiving, or accepting, is the same thing with consent or heart-covenanting. So that all that we oblige our selves to for the future in our sincere covenanting with Christ, are not any means of our Justification as begun, but only of the continuance or not losing of it. 3. Yet still we easily grant that or all covenanting without the hearts consent will save none.

Ob. Is it credible that all Israel must be forced to profess themselves true believers, when many were not?

Answ. God required them first to be such, and upon pain of damnation, and then to profess themselves such, and seal it by his Sacrament. He warranteth no man to profess a falshood, but that they truly consent and then profess it. Though Asa and the other Rulers could search no deeper then an External Profession or Covenant and their practice in seeking God, because they did not know the heart. And that it was indeed no other then that which then was saving faith which was professed (and so required) in that Covenant, doth appear in the terms of it. It was to take God, to be their only God, and to give up them∣selves to be his people; and the mention of their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage, and the nature of Circumcision shew that it was in Deum Misericordem & Redemptorem, they that professed to believe, with such respect to the blood of the Messiah as those darker times required. The terms in Deut. 26.16, 17, 18. do plainly express that faith which then was proper to the saved [The Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgements; thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thy heart, and with all thy soul: Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his wayes, and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgements, and to hearken to his voice: And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, &c.] Sin∣cerely to take the Lord for our God is the sum of all Religion, and the very nature of Sanctification. For it is not the bare Name of God, but God himself that is here meant. And this can be no less in any tolerable sense, then to take him by Assent and Consent, for our absolute Lord and Soveraign, and chief Good, or End.

And that the Jews themselves thus understood the Covenant of Circumcision, Ainsworth on Gen 17. sheweth out of their Rabbies in these words.

Ex lib. Zohar.

At what time a man is sealed with this bles∣sed seal of this sign, thenceforth he seeth the holy blessed God, pro∣perly, and the holy soul is united with him. If he be not worthy that he keepeth not this sign, what is written? By the breath of God they perish, Job 4.9. For that this seal of the holy bles∣sed God was not kept; but if he be worthy and keep it, the Holy

Ghost is not separated from him.] And after v. 12. ex Mai∣monid. "[By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant, by Circumcision, and Baptism, and Sacrifice, &c. And so in all ages when an Ethnick is willing to enter into the Cove∣nant, and gather himself under the wing of the Majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the Law, he must be circumcised, and baptized, and bring a Sacrifice, &c. When a man or wo∣man cometh to joyn a Proselite, they make diligent enquiry after such, lest they come to get themselves under the Law, for some riches that they should receive, or for dignity that they should ob∣tain, or for fear. If he be a man, they enquire whether he have not set his affection on some Jewish woman; or a woman her af∣fection on some young man of Israel. If no such like occasion be found in them, they make known unto them the weightiness of the yoke of the Law, and the toil that is in the doing of it, above that which people of other Lands have, to see if they will leave off. If they take them upon them, and withdraw not, and they see them that they come of love, then they receive them; as it is written, When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her, Ruth 1.18. Therefore the Judges received no Proselites all the dayes of David and Solo∣mon. Not in David's dayes, left they should have come of fear: Nor in Solomon's, lest they should have come because of the Kingdom and great prosperity which Israel then had. For who so cometh from the Heathens, for any thing of the vanities of this world, he is no righteous Proselite. Notwithstanding there were many Proselites, which in David's and Solomon's days, joyned themselves in the presence of private persons, and the Judges of the great Synedron had a•• care of them; they drove them not away after they were Baptized, out of any place, neither took they them neer unto them until their after-fruits appeared

Ob. 2. If none but the Regenerate or sincere Believers have Title to Baptism and the Lords Supper, then none can seek or re∣ceive them, till they have Assurance of their sincerity, which would exclude abundance of upright Christians.

Answ. 1. God layeth his commands upon us conjunctly, and our casting off one, will not authorize us to cast off another. Upright Christians are obliged both to judge themselves to be

what they are, and to receive the Seals of the Covenant: And if they judge themselves not to be upright when they are, or que∣stion their integrity as a thing to be doubted of, this is their sin, and cannot be done inculpably. And this sin will not justifie them in forbearing the Sacraments: For one sin will not ex∣cuse another. The thing therefore that such are bound to, is, first to use right means to know themselves, and then to judge of themselves as they are, and then to seek and receive the Sacra∣ments. And if he say, [I have tried, and yet I cannot dis∣cern, or I fear I am unfound] yet that will not free him from the blame of mis-judging, nor from the obligation of judging more justly of himself.

2. There is a true discerning of a man's own faith and repen∣tance, which is far below a strict Assurance; and he that truly discerneth that he repenteth and believeth, hath a clear ground to profess it, though he have much doubting and fear of the contrary. The judgement of few or none is in aequilibrio, but it swayeth and determineth either to judge that they are sincere, or that they are not. If it judge that they are not, when they are, their duty is to rectifie that judgement out of hand. If they judge that they are sincere, though they attain not a full Cer∣tainty, they have reason to act according to that judgement. Mans heart is a dark piece, and much unacquainted with it self; and if Mr Blake, or any of his opinion, will prove that a man must suspend all his Actions which are not guided by a certain assured judgement, he will evacuate most of Gods service in the Church. I doubt not but he will confess that it is only the penitent that should profess themselves penitent (in that Condition) and only they that truly desire Christ and Grace, that should say they desire them; and only they that have re∣ceived saving grace that should give God thanks for it as a recei∣ved benefit. And yet if no one should confess sin with profes∣sion of penitence but they that have full assurance that they are truly penitent; if no one should beg grace with profession that he desireth it, till he have full assurance of the truth of those desires; and if no one should give thanks to God for Redem∣ption (in the special sense) and effectual Vocation, and Con∣version, and Justification, Adoption, Reconciliation, Sanctifi∣cation,

&c. but those that have a full assurance that they have received these, I doubt God would have little Confession, Pray∣er, or Thanksgiving of this sort from his people. Is it unlaw∣full to say [Lord I believe] as long as we have any Vnbelief to be removed? When Peter knew not but that he might short∣ly deny Christ with cursing and swearing, yet might he law∣fully confess his belief in him. A man may warrantably speak and profess the Truth which he is not fully certain of, as long as he doth it bona fide, and really meaneth what he speaketh, and uttereth his very heart so far as he knoweth it. 2. And as long as he is not negligent in his endeavors to know it, but faithfully labors to be acquainted with it. All such ordinary Professions do imply this limitation [This is the truth, so far as I know my own heart.] And if it were not lawful to go on this ground, I must give up almost all my duties. For I finde so great darkness in my own heart, and strangeness to my self, that it is few things that I say of my own heart, which I can speak with such assurance as this. When Christ commanded me, Matth. 5.24. to [Leave my gift before the Altar, and go my way, and first be reconciled to my Brother, and then come and offer my gift;] as I am uncertain when my Brother's minde is reconciled to me, so if I should never offer my gift till I had full assurance that my own minde is sincerely reconciled to him, perhaps I might sometime be put upon a long forberance. For many a one that can say, [I know nothing by my self] is yet so conscious of the falsness of his heart, that he is forced to add [yet am I not thereby justified] and [I judge not my own self, &c.] Christ hath told us that God will not forgive us, unless we truly repent and believe, and from our heart forgive one another. If none may thank God for remitting their sins, till they have undoubting assurance of all this, God would have little thanks for forgiveness. Then the scruples of those that reject singing Psalms, would turn off al∣most all. Who durst say or sing Psal 116.1. [I love the Lord, &c.] Psal. 119.10. [with my whole heart have I sought thee, &c.] Psal. 138.1. & 91. & 111.1. [I will praise thee O Lord with my whole heart, &c.] unless so few as would make but small melody. Many particulars might be instanced in, to shew that this ground would evacuate most duties.

3. As Mr. Blake is uncertain of every one of his hearers that seeketh Sacraments, whether he have indeed a Dogmatical faith or not, so I doubt he would Baptize but few Children in com∣parison of what he doth, if none should seek it but those Parents which are undoubtingly certain that they do truly Believe with that Dogmatical faith. 1. Certain I am upon much sad tryal that a great number of the Parishioners that have long been our constant hearers, and have presented many Children to Baptism, have not a Dogmatical faith it self as to the essentials of the Christian Religion; For many tell me that they Believe not that the Son or the Holy Ghost is God, or that any one hath suf∣fered for us, or made satisfaction for our sins, and that they trust only in Gods mercy and their praying, and amendment for Pardon. 2. I meet with the most humble, Godly, learned and judicious men of my acquaintance, who manifest more doubtfulness about the Dogmatical part, or Assenting Act of their faith, then any other, or at least, their doubt of the rest is most here grounded, because they doubt of their truth in this. And though they are comforted in this consideration, that even Assent is imperfect in the Saints on earth, and mixt with doubt∣ings, and that they lament their infidelity and doubting, and have so much Belief of the truth of Scripture, as prevaileth with them to resolve to trust their everlasting happiness only on that bottom, though with the forsaking of all earthly things, yet are they far short of a full assurance or certainty of the truth of the Gospel, and are principally in doubt of the sincerity of this act of their faith. Now I would know what Mr. Blake would have these Godly persons do that are not assured of their Dog∣matical faith, but are oft ready to say, [I shall one day perish by this Unbelief.] If he would have them receive the Sacraments without assurance of a Dogmatical faith, we have reason to think that they may receive them without assurance of a justify∣ing faith, though we make this the condition of their Title as they do the other. 3. It is a great controversie among the Re∣formed Divines, whether an unconverted man can have that faith which we call Dogmatical. I know but two or three Di∣vines to be of Mr. Blake's opinion (though its like enough there may be more) And one of them thinks that the nature

of justifying faith lieth only in Assent, another I have heard in conference maintain that wicked men (or the unconverted) do not indeed Believe God; nor that the word of God is true. And if this be so, then sure a Dogmatical faith is a justifying faith, and he that must be sure of the one, must be sure of the other, when it is not really another but the same, or an essential part of the same. This also is the judgement of many Protestant Di∣vines, as Bishop Downam, Camero, and his followers, and many more, viz. that faith lieth in Assent or a perswasion of the truth of the word; and the common opinion of Protestants is, that this Assent is one essential part of justifying faith, and that it is in the understanding as well as the will, (I remember scarce any of note besides Amesius that placeth it in the will only, and make the act of the Intellect to be but Integral or preparatory.) And if there be any such thing as Grace, or Holiness and Rectitude in the Intellect, I do not yet conceive wherein it can consist, if not in Light, procuring knowledge of, and Assent to the truth. And how much of this (jure vel injuria) Mr. Blake yields to the unre∣generate, see him on sacr. pag. 179. As in these words. [

And therefore though the wicked match the Regenerate in assent in their understandings, it will not follow that their understandings there∣fore are truly sanctified] I am far from believing that the wicked do match the Regenerate in assent in their understandings:

But if he can prove this, I would fain know what the Rectitude or Sanctity of the understanding is, seeing he supposeth that this is not it. He that with a deep habitual assent doth Believe that God is the chief good, and that for him, and that Heaven is more desirable than earth, and that there is no salvation but by Christ received as our Priest, Prophet, and King, &c. I think he hath a sanctified understanding, or else I know not who hath, nor what it is. But in such great points as this, if Mr. Blake have made any new discovery of the nature of sanctity or rectitude in the in∣tellect as a thing differing from assent, he might have dealt chari∣tably to have told us what it is, and not to have left the world at a loss.

4. And I still think, that (at best) if the wicked have a true Dogmatical Belief of the essentials of Religion, it is as hard or harder for them to attain assurance of the truth of that Dogma∣tical

Belief in its kinde, as it is for the Regenerate to attain assu∣rance of the truth of saving faith in its kind. Therefore if the wicked may lawfully claim a Right in both Sacraments without assurance that they are sincere in their kind of faith, why may not the Godly claim a Right without assurance of sincerity in their kind of faith? And if Mr. Blake will say that neither assu∣rance nor perswasion, that we have either the one or the other, is necessary to a claim or Right, but only a promise of them for the future, then Heathens and Infidels have right, and may lay a claim. For they can promise to be Christians, and yet remain Hea∣thens.

Obj. 3. If you take none to have such a right as may warrant their claim and receiving but only sound Believers, then you make electi∣on, and the covenant and seals to by commensurate: which is not to be done.

Answ. The terms are ambiguous, Supposing that we under∣stand each other as to the sence of the word [Election,] I say of the word [Covenant] that it may mean three differing things. 1. If you mean the conditional promise of Christ and life to all that will Believe, I say that this is not commensurate with Election: For as to the tenor it belongs to all the world, and as to the promulgation, to all that hear it. This is sometime called a covenant in the sense as all Divine constitutions be, about our life: and sometime as it is the offer of a mutual covenant; and sometime as it is seemingly accepted: But still God is but condi∣tionally obliged: And this is no sufficient Title to the seal: For then it were due to open Infidels, if not to all. 2. If by the word [Covenant] you mean, mans own promise to God, or consent to his offer, so I say it is either sincere or not sincere. Sin∣cere consent to Gods offer is commensurate with election (un∣less you can prove that such fall away totally and finally.) But unsincere consent (as when it only to half) the offer or unsin∣cere promising (with the tongue, without the sincere consent of the heart) is not commensurate with election; nor doth it warrant the Hypocrite to claim the Sacraments, though it may warrant me to give them if he claim them. 3. If by the [Covenant] you mean. Gods actual obligation, which followeth mans ac∣ceptance, which is the performance of the condition of Gods

promise; then I say, it is commensurate with election (unless you could prove the foresaid doctrine of Apostacy) For when God hath promised us Christ and life on condition of our accep∣tance or consent, and we hereupon do sincerely consent, then Gods promise doth induce on him (as we may speak after our manner) an actual obligation, and give us an actual Right to the benefits, and is equivalent (as to that present benefit) to an ab∣solute promise. And it is only this that will warrant our claim to any of the benefits.

Obj. 4. Saith Mr. Blake, pag. 121. [And whereas he so peremp∣torily determines, that though wicked men oblige themselves, yet God still remaineth disobliged, let him consider, whether God be not some way obliged to all that he voucheth to be his people? If this be deny∣ed, there will be found no great happiness to a people, to have the Lord for their God; But God avoucheth these to be his people, Deut. 26.17. who are yet in an unregenerate state.]

Ans. By [some way obliged] you mean either conditionally (and so he is obliged to all the present living Infidels that ever heard the word, if not to all the world) or absolutely, or actually: and for the later let Mr. Blake on the next page answer Mr. Blake on this page: his words are [

Did ever man speak of an absolute tye in a conditional covenant, whether the conditions be kept or no? that therefore before mentioned which he calls the great question, is no question at all. It were madness to affirm that which with these limits he thus denies.

] The Condition suspendeth the Actual Ob∣ligation, or at least the Right given beyond all controversie. In∣deed if the stipulation were only in diem, and not conditionally, then the thing promised were presently Due, that is, to be hereaf∣ter received: and the promissary had jus ad rem, though not statim possidendi & statim crederet dies, etsi non statim veniret dies. For in a stipulation in diem crescit dies, quia statim debetur: sed nondum venit, quia non efficaciter peti potest. But in a promise conditional, there is no right, in the promissary, nor proper actual obligation on the promiser, till the condition be performed.

And if Mr. Blake deny this, he should have told us what it is that God is actually obliged to do, on mens bare profession or common sort of believing. But this he could not do without contradicting himself and the truth.

And for Gods avouching Israel to be his people] I answer, 1. He avouched them all to be what they were, that is, a people that had actually made an open profession of consenting to his covenant, and had ore tenus taken him for their God. 2. He avouched them to be his people also, because that very many (how many Gods knows) were sincere in this covenant; and the whole may be denominated from the better part (especially if also the greater)▪ as our Divines use to tell the separatists, that as a field that hath much Tares is called a Corn-field, not from the Tares, but the Corn, which is the better and valued part; so the Church is so denominated (say they) from the sincere Belie∣vers. 3. He avouched them to be his people, in regard of his peculiar choice of Israels seed to those temporal Mercies and pri∣viledges, which they had a promise of above other Nations of the earth; as many such are known. What benefits the Hypo∣crites had shall be enquired into anon.

Ob. 5. The Jews had much advantage, and the Circumcision much profit every way, Rom. 3.1, 2.

Answ. The great advantages of the whole Nation, were principally for the sake of the Elect, as the third verse following sheweth; and many mercies the rest had by being among them, which were not by a Moral Donation given particularly to those Professors, but to the Nation, denominated from the better part.

2. The Unbelievers or Ungodly had much advantage by provi∣dential disposals (planting the spiritual Church among them, &c.) of which they had themselves no proper grant by donati∣on, and to which they could lay no claim that was justifiable before God. And they had much accidentally from the Mini∣sters Commission, as is before explained. And thus the ungod∣ly may have still, both Word and Sacraments, and outward Communion with the Church, and much of Gods protection and blessing for the sake of the godly, to whom they joyn them∣selves by outward profession. But this is formerly answered, and so are all the rest of the material Objections that I remember in my Apologie to Mr. Blake; and therefore I shall, to avoid further tediousness, refer the Reader thither; and if he have read that and this, I think he will not need more words (if he

read not in the dark) to save himself from being deceived by any of the rest of Mr. Blake's Replies. Only one or two of his Summaries I shall examine, as I finde them set together, pag 141, 142. and pag. 551.

Ob. 6. Saith Mr. Blake, pag. 141. [My third Argument to prove that a Faith short of Justifying may give Title to Baptism, is, [to make the visible seal of Baptism which is the priviledge of the Church visible to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit, which is pe∣culiar to invisible members, is a Paradox.] When I put him to prove that this Paradox is mine, in the generality here exprest, he proves it from my own words; where I say, We give the seal of Baptism to all that seem sound Believers, and their seed; and we say the seal of the sanctifying spirit is only theirs that are such believers.] I am convinct beyond denial, viz. To seem be∣lievers, and to be believers, is all one and seeming believers and real believers are terms of equal latitude. And thus I am con∣futed, as Mr. Blake useth to confute me; no doubt, to the full satisfaction of some of his Readers.

The Visible Seal may be said to be of equal latitude, 1. Either in regard of a Title by Moral Donation which Coram Deo will warrant a Claim and Reception; and so I say that saving faith and such a Title to Sacraments (with the adult) are of equal latitude. 2. Or in regard of the justifiableness of a Ministers Administration, and the persons claim Ecclesia judice; and so they are not of equal latitude.

But saith Mr. Blake [For his distinction which he hints here, and plainly delivers elsewhere, of Right in foro Dei, and in foro Eccle∣siae, both to Covenant and Baptism; I suppose considerate men will pause upon it, before they receive it, especially in the sense which he puts upon it.]

I like considerate pausing Readers. But lets hear your Rea∣sons.

1. (Saith Mr. Blake) they may press him with his own Rule, Ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum; such a Right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God, I would fain learn.

Answ. But I know not what Teacher you would fain learn of. Far be it from me to imagine that I can teach you in any thing. But yet I may presume to tell you (though not to teach

you) 1. That (as is often manifested) such an improper right may result from the Precept or Ministerial Commission (to give the Sacrament to Believers, or Professors of Faith that claim them) without a Donation of Title to themselves to warrant that claim. 2. That the nature of things must be distinguished from those Morals which the Law must constitute. I am of opinion that we need not go to the distinctions of the Law, to prove either that God, and the Church are not all one, but are really distinct, or that the Understanding and Judgement of God and of the Church are not all one; or that Gods Approbati∣on, Justification, or Condemnation, is really distinct from mans.

3. There are some necessary Distinctions afforded us by that Doctrine which treats de legibus in Genere, which we may receive without recourse to the Law of God in Specie. Without Scrip∣ture it may be known that a Precept is not the same thing with a Promise or Deed of Gift; and that a Power of Administring to one that demandeth, is different from a Power to demand it, or any just Title that may warrant a claim.

4. If this will not serve you, I add, Lex distinguit, ergò di∣stinguendum est. 1. You confess that a Dogmatical Faith is necessary to our Title. And what is that equally Coram Deo & Exclesiâ? If a Jew say, [I will go and deride Mr. Blake; I will tell him to day that I believe in Christ, and I will be Baptized by him, and tomorrow I will scorn Christ to his face,] will you say that this man hath equall Right Deo judice, as he hath Ec∣clesia judice? I will not be too confident of my understand∣ing your minde, but upon consideration, I think you will not.

2. Matth. 22. and Luke. 14. The servants had power to bring in (by perswasion) that person that had not on the wed∣ding garment (though they were to perswade him to come as a meet guest, and so with that garment, yet the performance they left to himself:) But yet he had no warrant for his access in that condition, and he meets there with a judgement of God, which was distinct from that of the Church, which with a [Friend, how camest thou in hither] &c. left him speechless; Nor would it have saved him to have said, [Lord I was taught by learn∣ed

Divines that there is no Forum Dei to judge of my Right to Sa∣craments, besides the Forum Ecclesiae: and I had Right in the judge∣ment of the Church, and therefore so I have in thine.] And thou∣sands will finde this Plea prove uneffectual, if they shall be en∣couraged to use and trust to it.

3. 1. Cor. 11.31, 32. I think there is a judgement of the Lord mentioned against unworthy receivers, that is not the same with the judgement of the Church: Nor is it my opinion that it was the Churches judgement which laid some of them in sickness, some in weakness, and some asleep. God took cogni∣sance of mens not examining themselves, and eating, and drink∣ing unworthily, which was an eating and drinking damnation to themselves; and of their not discerning the Lords Body; and that further then the Church did.

4. It hath till now been taken for granted that there is a twofold forum or judgement exprest in Mat. 16.19. and Mat. 18.18. Where binding on earth and binding in heaven are distinguished, and loosing on earth and loosing in heaven. The Treatisers that have wrote of the power of the Keyes, and the Expositors upon this Text, have not thought that these two were but one, nor did offer so injuriously (that I say not re∣proachfully) to expound Christs words. If you say that [though they be not the same yet they agree, for that shall be bound or loosed in heaven, which is bound or loosed on earth] I an∣swer; that is, quando clavis non errat. When the Church judgeth justly, as the truth is. For God will not judge erroneously or un∣justly because man doth so. Yea though the Churches error be inculpable (as if they absolve or excommunicate a man upon the full testimony of false witness, &c.) yet God will not therefore judge as they. Though he will justifie their act of judging, yet he will not censure the true Title of the person to communi∣on accordingly, nor binde or loose in heaven according to any mistaking sentence. Many other Texts do sufficiently evidence this distinction.

But because Mr. Blake doth pag. 187. and often so perempto∣rily renounce this distinction in this controversie, I shall yet add one or two Reasons to shew the necessity of it.

Arg. 1. If the judgment of God, & the judgment of the Church

concerning mens Right and claim here be all one, then either the Churches judgement is infallible in this matter, or Gods judgement is fallible. But neither is the Churches judgement in∣fallible, nor Gods judgement fallible. Therefore they are not both one.

The force of the consequence is evident. And for the Minor, 1. To say Gods judgement is fallible, even that which he doth himself immediately exercise (of which we speak) is to Blas∣pheme. 2. To say that mans judgement here is infallible, is to speak, 1. That which cannot be proved. 2. More than the Papists, yea more than the Italian Papists say of the Popes: For Bellarmine himself will confess him fallible about such per∣sonal causes as these; whether such a mans cause be good or bad, &c. 3. If the judgement of man be in this case infallible, then no man was ever wrongfully admitted by the Church, and so the argument would hold à facto ad jus, such a one was admitted: therefore he had Right to claim and Receive: But the conse∣quent is intolerable. For 1. It hindereth all hypocrites in the world (that should believe it) from repenting of their unjust claim and Receiving, and justifieth them all Coram Deo; but sure it will prove an uneffectual justification. 2. The same it doth by all Ministers that ever administred the Sacraments: It teach∣eth them to justifie themselves as infallible, and to disclaim Re∣pentance for any mistake: He that dare tell all the Ministers in the world that they never gave a man a Sacrament without Right Coram Deo, or all the Receivers in the world, that they never received it without such Right as will warrant their claim and Receiving, will shew whether the weakness even of good mens arguings may seduce.

Moreover if the Minister be infallible in this case, then either by an ordinary ability of discerning, or by extraordinary pri∣viledge; The latter is not pretended by any, Protestants or Papists, that I know of: The former cannot be said, unless it be also said, 1. That all other men as wise be Infallible as well as they. 2. And that therefore the case hath such evidence that no Minister can possibly be mistaken in it. But this cannot reasonably be said. For 1. If an Infidel or Pagan come in scorn to be Baptized, and profess a Dogmatical faith when he hath

it not, the Minister cannot know his heart. 2. And if Mr. Blake will say that the very scornful words of such a Professing Pagan, are a sufficient title coram Deo, yet the Minister may possibly mistake his words, and think he saith [I do believe,] when he saith [I do not believe.] 3. Or the Minister may easily mistake the extent and nature of Mr. Blakes Dogmatical faith, and think that the Infidel doth profess that Dogmatical faith, when it is but some faith yet lower than it, or but part of it.

Furthermore, if Ministers be thus infallible, then none of their Acts can be Nullities: but the contrary is true, and hath been the Judgement of the Church expressed in many Councils (de re∣baptizandis non legitime baptizatis quoad essentiam baptismi.)

And this would put us hard to the enquiry, Which is the Church that hath this Infallibility? Unless we say that all have it that call themselves the Church; against which many Councils have Judged, when they required the rebaptizing of all that were baptized by the Paulianists, &c.

In a word, all the Arguments which we use against the Papal Infallibility, might be here taken up, and Voluminously managed against this.

And if Mr. Blake disown this Infallibility, there is no way left, but either to say that God hath no Judgement of this Case but what is fallible (which I hope he will not); or that God hath one Judgement of it, and the Church another; and then we have that we seek. If he say that God hath no immediate Judgement at all of it, but only the Churches, which is mediately his: I answer, 1. The Churches is not mediately his, when it is sinfully errone∣ous. 2. If God have a knowledge and observance of it, then he hath a Judgement of it. But to deny Gods knowledge or obser∣vance of it, is intolerable: therefore. 3. And I must say, that since I have observed in Scripture, both the use that God makes of good Angels and of evil, about the sons of men, and what appear∣ances they make before him, Job 1. and how the faithful have their Angels beholding Gods face; how they have charge of us, and bear us up, and are ministring spirits for our good, and how the Excommunicate are delivered up to Satan, with much more of the like, I easily believe that God may well be said to have a fo∣rum, and pass his sentences on the sons of men before his Angels,

were it but by committing his will to Execution by them: For so far as they are Executioners, they must have a Commission for Execution, which containeth or implieth the sentence. And so there is a Justification and a Condemnation now before them.

Argum. 2. If God have no other Judgement about Right to Ordinances, but the Churches Judgement, then Hypocrites have equal Right before God and before the Church, (or Judice Deo & Judice Ecclesia;) yea it is the same Right which is more than equal Right. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the An∣tecedent.

A Jew that would make a jest of Christ and Baptism by a feigned Profession, hath such a Right Ecclesia Judice, as that the Church cannot contradict it: But God can contradict it. The Church cannot find any imperfection in it but God can. Eccle∣sia Judice, his Right is as good as the soundest Believers: but God will not say so. He may charge the Church with doing him wrong, if they deny him the Sacrament: but so he cannot charge God, if he hinder or prohibit it. Surely God will acknow∣ledge a further Title to Sacraments in the Saints, than such a Jew or Pagan hath.

Argum. 3. Where there are different Executions, there are different Judgements: But God hath an Execution different from the Churches (in this Case) as is apparent, 1 Cor. 11. [For this cause many are sick and weak &c. If we would judge our selves, we should not be judged, &c.] Therefore God hath a Judgement differing from the Churches.

Argum. 4. If about all humane acts God have a Judgement differing from mans, then about the present Case. But the An∣tecedent is so evident and so momentous, that I hope few Chri∣stians will question it.

Instead of arguing such a Cause any further, I shall lament the case of the Church among us, that any should be found among its Reverend, Pious Guides, that shall so confidently publish, or so easily entertain (as some seem to do) so strange a point as this which we oppose: For how far may they yet be led, that can so easily be led to this. Compassion of the Church of Christ doth urge me to speak thus, though I know to the guilty its like to be offensive.

But yet we may thank God that there be so few of such con∣ceits: sure I am, it is ordinary with Protestants and Papists in such cases to distinguish between forum Dei & Ecclesiae, Gods Judgement and the Churches. Instead of citing many, I shall now take up with one only, whose Cause (against the Separa∣tists) did lead him so much to have enterta••ned the helps that lie on that side, that if he had thought this notion of Mr. Blakes sound, he was very like to have received it.

Rutherford in his due Right of Presb. Cap. 9. §. 9. p. 242. Dist. 1. [Any who blamelesly professeth Christ, is Ecclesiastically, in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible, having Ec∣clesiastical power valid for that effect, but except he be a sincere be∣liever, he is not morally, and in foro Dei, a living member of the invisible Church. Dist. 3. The Invisible Church Catholick is the principal, prime, and native subject of all the Priviledges of Christi∣ans, the Covenant, Promises, Title of Spouse, Bride, Redeemed, Tem∣ple of the holy Spirit, &c. And the Church Visible as she is such, is no waies such a subject; the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many Errors in our Reverend Brethren in this matter, which also deceived Papists, as our Divines demonstrate. Dist. 4. A seen Profession is the ground of members admission to the Visible Church. Hence there is a satisfaction of the Conscience of the Church in admitting of members, either in the Judgement of Charity, or in the Judgement of Verity. Dist. 5. There is a satisfaction in the Judge∣ment of Charity Positive; when we see signs which positively assure us that such an one is Regenerate: and there is a satisfaction Nega∣tive, when we know nothing on the contrary, which hath a latitude; for I have a Negative satisfaction of the Regeneration of some, whose persons and behaviour I know neither by sight or report. This is not sufficient for the accepting of a Church-membership, therefore some∣what more is required. pag. 244. Concl. 2. The Invisible, and not the Visible Church is the principal, prime, and only proper subject with whom the Covenant of Grace is made, to whom all the Promises do belong, and to whom all Titles, Styles, Properties, and Priviledges of special note, in the Mediator do belong. If our Reverend Brethren would be pleased to see this, they would forsake their doctrine of a vi∣sible constituted Church, &c. 1. The Church to whom the Cove∣nant and the Promises of the Covenant are made, is a Church and a

seed which shall endure as the daies of heaven, Psal. 89.35, 36. and such as can no more fall away from being Gods people in an eter∣nal Covenant with him, then their God can alter what he hath spoken, or lie, Psal. 89.33, 34, 35. They can no more cease from being in Gods favour, or be cast off of God, than the Ordinances of Heaven can de∣part from before God, &c. Jer. 31.35, 36, 37. Isa. 54.10. or then God can retract his Oath and Promises, Heb. 6.18, 19, 20. But the Visi∣ble Church of this or that Parish, &c.] Pag. 246.2. The Church with whom the Covenant is made, and to whom the Promises of the Covenant are made, is the Spouse of Christ, his Mystical Body, the Sons and Daughters of the Lord God Almighty, a Royal Priesthood, a chosen Generation, Kings & Priests to God: But this is the Invisible Church of elect Believers, not the Visible Church of Visible Profes∣sors. —] Pag. 248. [The Church whose gathering together, and whose unity of faith, &c. the Lord intendeth by giving to them to that end some to be Apostles, &c. must be the Church to which all the pro∣mises of the Covenant and Priviledges do belong. But the Lord in∣tendeth the gathering, &c. only of the Invisible Elected and Redeem∣ed Church, not of the Visible Professing or Confessing Church, &c.] Pag. 249.4. The Invisible Church, and not the Visible, as it is such, hath Right to the Sacraments: because these who have Right to the Covenant, have Right to the Seals of the Covenant— But only the Invisible Church hath Right to the Covenant. For God faith only of and to the Invisible Church, and not of the Visible, in his gracious pur∣pose, Jer. 32.38. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31.33. I will put my Law, &c. Now the Visible Church, as the Visible, is not within the Covenant. therefore the Visible Church as the Visible Church, and being no more than the Visible Church, hath not Right to the Seals of the Covenant; but in so far as they are with∣in the Covenant, and in so far as God is their God, and they his par∣doned and sanctified People, as it is, Jer. 31.33, 34.

5. It is known here that our Brethren joyn with the Papists. For Papists, ignorant of the doctrine of the Visible Church, labour to prove that, &c. Just so our Brethren take all the places for the Priviledges, Covenant, Promises, Stiles of Sister, Love, Dove, Spouse, &c.—] 6. A Church in Covenant with God, and the Spouse of Christ, &c. — is a Church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God, &c. —But so it is that no Visible Church on earth,

that are visible Professors of any competent number, is such a Church, &c.— therefore no Visible Church as such is a people or Church in Covenant with God. See Roger's Catechis. part. 2. Art. 6. pag. 176, 177. Concl. 3. A visible Profession of the Truth and Doctrine of Godliness, is that which essentially constituteth a Visible Church. Only our Brethren and we differ much about the Nature of this Profession—Our Brethren will have none members of the Visi∣ble Church, but such as are satisfactory to the consciences of all the Visible Church, and give Evidences so clear, as the Judgement of dis∣cerning men can attain unto, that they are truly regenerated.—] See further.

This much I have cited specially as to the main Cause: Further (as to the Distinction in question) see him after pag. 185.4. §. 5.

1. Dist. All Believers, in foro Dei, before God have Right to the Seals of the Covenant: These to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth, to these the Seal belongeth: But in foro Ec∣clesiastico, in an orderly Church way, the Seals are not to be con∣ferred by the Church upon persons because they believe, but because they profess their believing. —] See further.

Pag. 188. [1. The Seals of the Covenant are principally given to the Invisible Church, as the Covenant it self, &c.—and The In∣visible Church as such, as a number of Believers, have only Right before God to both Covenant and Seals. — 2. It's true, the Orderly and Ecclesiastick way of dispensing the Seals, is that they be dispensed only to the Visible Church. —]

Pag. 286. [These and many other places do strongly prove our point: and specially that the Profession of Simon Magus, who before God deserved to be cast out of the Church, Act. 8. is sufficient to make one a member of a Visible Church. Yea, but none deserve in foro Ecclesiae, in the Churches Court, to be cast out, but such as either confess scandalous Sins, or are contumacious, or convicted judicially of the same before witnesses, &c.]

The same Author in his Peaceable Plea, pag. 181. [We preach and invite in the Gospel all the uncircumcised in heart, and all the wicked to come, and hear, and partake of the holy things of the Gospel, and receive the promises thereof with faith: And when they come to this heavenly banquet without their wedding Garment, Math. 22.12, 13. 2 Cor. 2.16. Mat. 21.43, 44. it followeth not, because they

profane the holy things of God, that Ministers who baptize the In∣fants of hypocrites and profane persons, are accessary to the profaning the holy things of Christ — It is one thing, whom Ministers should Receive as members of the Sanctuary and Church: and another thing, who should come in —]

Pag. 183. [Object. Divine wrath is kindled for the profanation of holy things. Answ. That this is the Ministers or Churches pro∣fanation of holy things, is not proved: It is not wrath procured by the Ministers, or those who Receive them into the Church; but wrath procured by the unworthy In comers. —] So far Rutherford.

Having said thus much to Mr. Blakes denyal of the distincti∣on of Gods judgement and the Churches in this case, I proceed to that which followeth in his book. pag. 141.

[Mr. Blake. 3.

They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to prophane this Divine Ordinance, in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to meer blank paper: which is a most contumelious abuse of it.

]

Ans. They may sooner tell it, than prove it, to be any propha∣nation or contumelious abuse. Big words, may be bad arguments. Its the Claimer that is the Prophaner, whom you encourage by telling him that he hath a Title: but it is not the Minister; who was never made a searcher of hearts, no not to know the truth of a Dogmatical faith: and therefore may justly set the seal to a blank paper, when the Receiver is made judge whether it be blank or not, or at least, is to give us the evidence that we must proceed upon. I would you would before this have told us whether one that dissemblingly pretendeth your Dog∣matical faith, be a blank paper or not, or one that as a Parrat is taught to say [I believe in God, &c. [when he understandeth not what he saith. If not, it seemes a Dogmatical faith is not the Title then in your account. If yea, then doth the Minister prophane the Ordinance in giving it such; and hath not Mr. Blake sealed to many such blanks, and contumeliously abused the Ordinance?

[Mr. Blake.

They may tell him that poor souls are thus misera∣bly cheated, in bearing them in hand, that these great priviledges, and consequently all further Church priviledges are theirs, when the conveyance is meer fraudulent that casts it upon them.

Answ. 1. Alas poor souls! Alas miserable cheaters! But who are they? They that bear them in hand that these priviledges are theirs by conveyance: which is not 1. Let Mr. Blake answer for himself. 2. It was a gentler passage than this, that caused Mr. Blake presently to inferr. [It seems he hath met with a company of cheaters.] 3. But to call his brethren cheaters, is nothing so dangerous as to call the conveyance fraudulent. That do not I do: for I say that there is no such conveyance, (unless you take the word improperly.)

[Mr. Blake

They may yet tell him that a door is here opened to Anabaptism, or multiplication of Baptism. A new door, of which either nothing, or very little, hath ever been spoken.

]

Ans. 1. They may tell me so: but how will you prove that they tell me true? I see by you, that telling is easier then prov∣ing, and commoner then truth. 2. Your making this a door to Anabaptism, doth give them that which you cannot warrant them, and advantage the Anabaptists more under pretence of renouncing their advantages, than you desire: the common suc∣cess of passionate oppositions. 3. Your feigning this to be new, and never or little spoken of before, in my understanding, importeth one of these consequences; either as if you had said [All Historie is false; believe nothing that ever you read in them; nay trust not your eyes and ears, that see and hear the contrary to what I say;] or else as if you had proclaimed. [Take heed how you credit even Godly Divines in the heat of their contention, even in the most palpable matters of fact.]

Mr. Blake.

When discovery shall be made that the Title when Bap∣tism was administred was barely seeming, then all was Null ab initio in such proceedings: and as such persons alwaies were in the eyes of God, so now in the eye of men they are unbaptized persons.

] Ans. What proof of all this? but you say so? 1. Baptism is some∣times taken for the meer external Ordinance: sometime for that conjunct with the grace signified, or with the effects. As to the actual conveyance of pardon and life, I affirm that Sacraments are uneffectual to unbelievers; and so do you; If that be a Nul∣lity, call them Null. But how prove you that the external Ordi∣nance is a Nullity where there was no Title? The Title indeed was Null ab initio, but prove that the Ordinance was so too?

well! this must be proved from Simon Magus and from Titius: [

If Titius got possessions presumed to be his due inheritance, and afterwards it be made appear that it never pertained to him, but to Sempronius, all is to be judged invalid.

] Ans. But if this pos∣session was delivered by a sealed instrument, as possession of par∣don is to a Traytor or Malefactor (where right and possession are co-incident,) and the Tenor of this instrument be, that only those that are returned to loyalty shall have the benefit, (e. g. pardon) and a messenger is sent to deliver these instruments to all that profess Loyaltie; here if any Traytor shall profess that Loyalty, and seek to kill his soveraign the next day, though all be Null as to the effect of pardoning him, yet the external acts of sealing and delivery are not themselves Nullities. And if it be the will of the Prince that this act shall be effectual to its end, when the person shall return to his Loyalty, without the sealing the instrument anew, it may even to the effect be valid afterward, that through his fault was not so before.

But if the Anabaptists must have this news that I am turned so far to them as to open them a new door, let them take alto∣gether, and make merry that Mr. Blake and I are turned so far Anabaptists together, and then there may be hope that while we two hold open the door, more may come in ere long. He oft tells us that it is a Dogmatical faith, or a faith short of justifying, that entitleth to Baptism: England swarms with people that have not a Dogmatical faith, and yet they receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and their Children are Baptized (and what faith their ancestors had, who knoweth?) There's scarce a week but I hear one or other tell me, that Christ is God and not Man, or Man and not God, or that they do not think any one hath been our surety, or made any satisfaction to God, or suffer∣ed for our sins.] If all these Baptisms and other administrati∣ons be Nullities, and if Mr. Blake will but teach that all should be rebaptized, whose parents are now discovered to want the Title of a Dogmatical faith, I much fear, he will yet have more rebaptized persons in one County than now is in Ten, at least.

If the Minister be commissioned to deliver the Sacrament on an unjust claim, this justifieth his act, and as he did his duty,

so he hath no Scripture for the repeating it.

I before instanced in the case of a scornful Jew, that purposely comes to Baptism to deride Christ, or to be in a capacity to mis∣chief his cause or people. Hath this man a Title by Gods Dona∣tion to Church-membership, seals, and all the blessed priviledges of the visible Church, which Mr. Blake sets forth? If he have, then malicious wickedness is the condition of Gods great mercies. And when shall we see the Donation that conveyed this Title to him?

Mr. Blake. [6. "They may tell you that that Scripture distinction of Circumcision in the flesh, and Circumcision in the heart, is hereby overthrown.] Ans. 1. They may tell it me twice, before I will be∣lieve them once. 2. They may tell it you as well as me. Was it not possible for a Jew upon mistake to Circumcise a man that had no Right to it, and yet upon some kind of misunderstood professi∣on? Resolve whether that were a Nullity first for your self, and then I will study a further answer.

Mr. Blake. [7.

They may tell him that this principle stand∣ing, all persons dying unregenerate, die unbaptized; yea all that were baptized in infancy and after converted remain still unbaptized.

] Answ. 1. What! if I saw them Baptized with mine eyes? many such tales I know I may hear, and I will believe them as I see cause. 2. I suppose by this that you seem your self to judge, that all that are without a Dogmatical Faith are un∣baptized.

Mr. Blake. [8.

That it is much to be feared, if not certain∣ly to be concluded that the Major part by far of Worcester∣shire combination consists of unbaptized persons, there being I doubt no good evidence of true conversion in the most con∣siderable part of them — I am sure it is voiced that the most prophane where the Minister carrieth any authority, are as forward for subscription as any.

]

Answ. 1. As to your bold censure of so many persons whose faces you never saw, and whose names you never heard, it shew∣eth us what you dare do. You might more safely have learnt of Christ [Judge not that ye be not Judged,] and have hearkened to Paul [Who art thou that Judgest another mans servant?] 2. Es∣pecially when your censure is founded upon lying fame, as it is.

This is the way to discredit all history, when Godly men dare publish that of so many in a County, which the whole Country almost, that are capable of understanding such marters, do know to be false. 3. Have we groaned, and prayed, and suffered so long in hope of Discipline, and yet are there Godly Mini∣sters among us, that have the hearts to calumniate and reproach the attempts of it, where they never had the face to acquaint us with the least mistake or miscarriage in our way? Ah what wonder if the poor Church consume away in its corruptions and divisions, when this is the friendship and assistance of its guides! But of this before.

The other summary of Mr. Blakes oppositions, is pag. 550, 551. in his introduction, where he thus declares his minde.

Mr. Blake [

And truly (Sir!) if I should have a thought of changing my opinion, I know not how to look to the end of the danger that will follow. I must first necessarily engage my self in an ever∣lasting Schism, being not able to find out a Church in the world of any interest, in which I shall dare in this account to hold com∣munion.

]

Answ. O the power of prejudice! What Church in all the world was ever of your Judgement? And would you have sepa∣rated from all the Churches in the world? But lets hear the rea∣sons of your fear.

Mr. Blake. [

I shall see in many members too clear symptoms of non-Regeneration and Vnbelief. —

]

Answ. 1. Do not those persons profess a Justifying faith? 2. Or is it Infallible symptoms of the contrary which you mean, or which are sufficient to nullifie or invalidate that Profession? if not, you say nothing: if so, then 3. Dare you hold communion with no Church that hath some members that in your own Judge∣ment are unfit to be there? How oft hath this opinion been con∣futed in the Separatists? But you add your reason.

Mr. Blake. [

Though this will not bear a separation, yet this con∣sideration of their non-baptism will necessarily enforce it.—

]

Answ. 1. The Enemy of the Church needs no hands to do a great part of his work, but our own. The Anabaptists take us to be all unbaptized, and thence infer a necessity of Separation. Their Separation troubleth the Church much more than their

opinion for re-baptizing. Our endeavour is, at least to bring them to this, that being re-baptized they would rest satisfied, and live in peaceable communion with the Church. Mr. Blake steps in and confirmeth them in their consequence, on supposi∣tion of the Antecedent which we cannot satisfie them in; and so frustrateth all our labour, and gives them the day, in that, and considereth not I fear the danger of promoting such a schism. But he would do well first to answer the many Reasons that Mr. John Goodwin hath brought against that opinion, and take his work clean before him. If I knew a Church or whole Na∣tion of men that thought verily they were truly baptized, and I thought that it was not so, if yet they profest true Faith and Holiness, I durst not separate from them. 2. But how irk∣som must it needs be to your Judicious Readers, to have such conclusions tost up and down with meer confidence, upon sup∣positions, which you disdain (or deign not) to prove? One Argument to have proved that our Principles infer the Nulli∣ty of the Baptism of the Unregenerate, had been more worth than all this kind of talk. I say that Deo Judice such men have no Title by any Grant or Gift of God to claim or receive the Sacraments, though the Minister have Commission to give it to some unjust claimers. This opinion professeth the Nul∣lity of the Title which is denyed. Do you prove that it also inferreth the Nullity of the external Baptism it self, which was justly administred, though unjustly demanded. Its tedious to read voluminous Disputes, where that which requireth proof is still taken for granted.

But if all this were so, I think you must still be a Separatist on your own Principles. For where would you find a Church (among us) where there be not many that have not a Dogmati∣cal faith, which you say must give them Title to Baptism?

Mr. Blake. [

And if I be holpen out (as indeed I utterly despair) by any distinction of forum Dei and forum Ecclesiae, Vnivocal and Equivocal, what thought then shall I entertain of the Holy Scripture?

]

Answ. I cannot tell what thoughts you will have of it, but I can partly tell what thoughts you should have of it. Will you deny that the Scripture most commonly speaks of God him∣self

himself in equivocal terms? I hope you will not: And how should it speak otherwise to mans understanding? And yet what thoughts will you entertain of the Scripture? You will not I hope take on you to know no difference between Jesuitical dis∣sembling equivocation, which is to deceive, and the use of equi∣vocal terms, either necessarily for want of other words in being, or Rhetorically for ornament, or when custome of Speech hath made them the most apt? Will you so far equivocate with equi∣vocal terms, as to confound the culpable equivocation with the laudable, and then say, [What thoughts shall I have of the holy Scriptures?] this doth not beseem an Expositor of the Scriptures.

And whereas you next add the many titles given to the unre∣generate, I have answered it before, and more may do in the next Dispute, besides what you had even now from Mr. Rutherford. These titles were never given to any of your Professors of a faith short of that which Justifyeth. And yet there is no passage in your Book that amazeth me more than your frequent and con∣fident Assertions of the contrary, and pretenses of the common Judgement of the Church to be on your side.

Pag. 116, 117. When I had said that Dr. Ward would not have found a second to undertake his cause, you say, [

How this pas∣sage fell from his pen, may well be to very intelligent Reader mat∣ter of admiration — that a man of such multiplicity of reading should think that Dr. Ward in this opinion would not have found a second, when if he had perused our approved Authors about the question, especially since it came to a punctual just debate, he may soon see that he hath almost every one to appear for him, if this which he mentions be his opinion: unless perhaps he hath been so held in reading the Fathers and other Writers for the first thirteen or fourteen hundred years (in which few will I think come out and vie with him,) that he hath not regarded what hath been said this 1500 years in this corner of the world.

]

Answ. 1. Your groundless insipid scorn, about reading the Fathers of the first 1400 years, doth no whit clear the Truth, nor strengthen your Cause, nor (I think) tend to the pleasing of God. 2. One of us have certainly exposed our selves to the Readers, —when we stand wondering thus at each

other, and profess our understanding to be at so great a distance about a matter of open fact. I must still say, that I hoped Dr. Ward would not have found a Second to undertake that Cause. But this doth not intimate either that I never read that any was of his minde before, or that I expected not that any should be af∣terward: Its one thing to be of that Opinion, and another thing as his Second to undertake it. But I will now say more than that which you wonder at. I must profess that I do not know of any one Protestant Divine, reputed Orthodox, of that Judgement, before Dr. Ward and you: though some Papists and Arminians I knew of that minde: and since I finde Sir Hen. Vane maintain it; and one John Timson, in his Defence of M. Humphrey; and now newly M. Humphrey, in his second Vindication of Free Ad∣mission. Let all Readers now come and wonder at your wonder∣ing and mine, or at least the vast disagreement of our Judgements, in such a point of fact. All that ever open the books of Prote∣stants, come and judge betwixt Mr. Blake and me. Dr. Ward and he do maitain [That a certain kinde of faith which is short of Justifying faith, giveth title to Baptism even before God] I say, [that only true Justifying faith is the condition of our Title before God, as given by him, and warranting our claim; but that the bare pro∣fession of that Justifying faith (but of no lower) doth make us such whom the Minister must give the Sacraments to if we claim them, and so by it we have a Right to them before the Church, and so far before God as he is the approver of the Churches act.] Mr. Blake saith, almost every one of our late Writers appear for him: I say, I remember none of the Reformed Divines for them. Nor do I finde that Mr. Blake himself hath produced any to that end, but by meer abusing them, Certain I am, that the common doctrine of Reformed Divines is, [that sound believers are members of the mystical Church, and that professors of that belief are members of the visible Church, to whom we must give Sacraments.] But as for your third sort, who believe with another kinde of faith, or pro∣fess so to do, it is not their use to take these as members of ei∣ther, or such as have right to Sacraments.

One more Objection I finde much stood upon (which I had al∣most forgot) viz, The Sacraments are appointed for the visible Church: therefore all that are of the visible Church have Right to them.]

Answ. the word [appointed] is ambiguous. If it mean on∣ly that Ministers are appointed to deliver it to men upon an outward Profession and Claim, this we still grant. But if the meaning be, that Hypocritical or Unregenerate Professors have any Moral Donation or Promise of them, or any command to claim and receive them, in their present state, this is but a bare affirming of the thing in question; and so their Consequent is the same with the Antecedent. What Mr. Galespie and Mr. Rutherford, and many other Divines have said against it, you have seen before; as also by what Scripture-Evidence it is de∣stroyed.

Ob. But tis said of the Jews, that to them pertained the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises.] Rom. 9.4.

Answ. 1. Yet will it not follow that all these pertain to all the Visible Church, and therefore not to the Church as Visi∣ble. The Glory, that is, the Ark, and other signs of some Glorious Presence, and the giving of the Law here mentioned, with other Priviledges expressed in the next words, were proper to the Jews. 2. The Jewish Nation contained some that were truly sanctified, and some that were not. To the later sort was given the Law▪ Covenants, Promises, &c. providentially, and by way of Offer: God so ordered it, that among them these excellent mercies should abide, and to them they should be of∣fered; and if they had heartily accepted them, they might have had a proper Title to the Benefits of the Covenant it self. And it fell out that the seals were actually applied to them upon their pretended acceptance of the offer, and upon their claim. But to the former belonged the Covenants and Promises as the instru∣ments of Gods Donation, whereby he conveyed to them actu∣all Right to the Benefits: But so it did not to the latter (unless we speak of some particular promise made to this or that indivi∣all person, or some temporal promises to the Jews as Jews, and not as a Visible Church) Yet may it well be said that to the Jews in general the Covenants, Promises, &c. belonged; not only because the Regenerate were Jews, and the whole Nation was denominated from the better part sometime, but also (which

is Pauls sence in that Text) because it is not the foresaid proper Right that is here spoken of, but the actual sending of this Light among them, and the tendering of it to them, and con∣tinuing it with them, together with the success of it so far as that some were sanctified by it, and others seemingly consented to it. And thus we may say of England now in the general, that it enjoyeth the Gospel, and Sacraments, &c. in that they are among us, and all men that are truly willing may have a saving title to them, and the rest that pretend to be willing and are not, do actually partake of the External Ordinance, though to their own condemnation, through their own default. But this is no affirming that the unregenerate have a proper Title given them, which may warrant their claim in that estate; I mean, to the Sacraments, which are special Ordinances.

The Reverend Vindicator of Free Admission, layeth down 13 Reasons to prove that [the Covenant in the general Grace and ex∣ternal Administration of the Ordinances belongs to the whole Church as Visible, and to the several members alike] To which I say, 1. that it [belongs] to them, is too large a word without distincti∣on to use in a profitable discourse. I have elsewhere shewed that Covenant and Seals do belong to them in some sence, and in other not; and how far such are in Covenant. 2. Note on the by, that if this were granted, its nothing to Mr. Blake's main cause against me, that [a Faith short of justifying gives Right] For no man was ever a member for a Faith short of justifying; but only for a saving faith, or the profession of a saving faith. 3. Note that the stress of the Controversie is not [Whether it belong to them at all?] but whether (as he affirmeth) to all alike? Enough is said before for the solving of his Arguments. More particularly.

To the first. Pag. 6. How the whole Nation of the Jews were in Covenant, is before declared, (more than which is yet unproved:) and also how little this makes for his End.

To the Second: We easily grant that the Gentiles are graf∣fed into the same Olive, and are as much in the Covenant of Grace as the Jews were (so many of the Gentiles as profess

Christianitie.) And because it is no more, it is nothing to their purpose.

To the Third: I Answer: There's no doubt but the promise belongs to all that God shall call; that is, the bare offer be∣longs to all them that are called uneffectually, and still remain in unbelief: And the worst of them are invited to Repent and Believe, which when they do, they have Title in that same pro∣mise to Remission and the Seals of it: And when they profess to Repent and Believe, and so require the Seals, they have such a Right Coram Ecclesiâ, as that▪ we must admit of them. But more than this here is yet no proof of.

To the Fourth: The Called some of them obey not at all: some of them obey ore tenus, and as to some faith short of justifying: and some of them obey the Call sincerely. You mean the Se∣cond: Of whom I say, 1. Prove if you can that any called ones may have the Sacraments, that profess not saving Faith. 2. And prove that they who barely profess it, have the Title which is in controversie between us, which will justifie their claim, as well as our giving it on that claim. The saying that they are called is no proof. As for your phrase of [an outward being in Covenant] you know I affirmed it long ago ex parte hominis, they outwardly covenant with God, and oblige them∣selves. But if you mean it ex parte Dei, that he hath any such meer outside promises when he meaneth not as he speaks, or that he is actually obliged as a Covenanter to them, yea but for outward things, I have long waited from others for the proof in vain. As to the phrase [Equivocal] you shall have more of it, God willing, in due place.

To the Fifth: There's difference between the Jews then and the World: 1. In that one part of the Jews were sincere in the Covenant, and that in great numbers; in whom, as it were, the life of the Church did abide. 2. In that the rest of them (as to the main body) professed that true faith which others had. 3. And in that such bare professors were thereupon admitted into that Societie, and into those Ordinances, which tended to help them to that sinceritie which they wanted; some of which Ordinances they were immediately bound to use, and

others of them but in order after their Conversion: and though they used them unjustly before Conversion, the thing was a mercy in it self, though mis-received by them. 4. And then they had many temporal promises which no other Nation had: nor have we. I think heres a difference from the Gentile world. Prove more, if you affirm it.

To the Sixth: I have answered it over and over before. They are commanded to be circumcised but as a sign and seal of the Covenant: Therefore they are bound first in order to consent in heart to the Covenant: And if they do the former without the later, it may shew that they have by outward covenanting obliged themselves to God, and so are annumerated with his li∣sted souldiers by the Church: But it proveth not that God is in actual obligation to them, except only as to any of those mer∣cies that were absolutely promised to the Israelites, and belong not to us.

To the Seventh: The weak unworthy Author of the book of Infant Baptism, whom you are pleased to load with a Title which his conscience doth disown, doth heartily persist in be∣lieving that the conditional Covenant is made to more than the Elect, even to all, at least that hear it; and that this is the effect of Christs blood; and that the entrance into covenant, and ac∣cepting the terms of it, ore tenus, or not sincerely and unreser∣vedly, is common to Elect and Reprobate.] But all this is no∣thing to the present business.

To the Eighth: It is a strange consequence that such [Must renounce their profession, and never come to ordinances, &c.] Must importeth Duty. And their duty is sincerely to Repent, and Believe, and Profess, and not to renounce profession, but only to lament the falshood and hypocrisie in professing what they did not do. Nor is any bound to stay from Ordinances sim∣ply, but to repent, believe, and so come; as Peter hid Simon Ma∣gus, Repent and Pray, &c. But if he will profess falsly, and come without Repentance, let him do it at his peril, and not think God is obliged to bless him in it; which would lead hard up to the Papists Opus operatum, though I know how much this is disclaimed by Mr. Blake. For when you liberally give such men a

a Title Coram Deo to the Seals, what can be that Title but the Opus operatum of a verbal profession: For though a Faith short of Justifying be talkt of, none of you all can tell who hath it, and who hath it not; and yet I find not so much openness as to speak out and tell us whether indeed all the Hypocrites that have not so much as the Dogmatical Faith which they profess, have indeed a Title before God to the Seals, on the Opus opera∣tum of profession or not: Though by consequence it appeareth that you must say so, or cast all your cause away.

To the ninth I Answer: If you know him not a dissembler, he is to you what he professeth to be: If therefore he profess that the Foundation is laid, when it is not, you must endeavour to build him up. But if you know him to dissemble, I suppose you will rather help to lay the Foundation before you go any further. But 2. If you can say as much to prove that I may not teach any but Disciples the observable commands of Christ (in sensu activo; that is, do my best to teach them) as I have done to prove that wicked men have no Title to the Sacraments which will warrant them Coram Deo, to claim them, you will do much towards the changing of my minde.

To the Tenth I answer: This confusion marrs all. I have oft told you, unregenerate men are really in covenant as to their ex∣ternal engaging act; and this they may break. But doth it fol∣low that they cannot violate their own promise, unless God be actually obliged by promise to them.

To the Eleventh. I will not stand now to search whether Ju∣das was one of them that was bid Eat, and Drink: But supposing it granted, it is most certain that he was commanded as much to take and feed on Christ by faith: and that he was offered the Sacrament as a Sacrament, that is, a sealing and professing sign, as I have before explained. Now if he had so received it as it was offered, and in the nature of a Sacrament, as Christ bid him; Take, Eat, Drink, then certainly he had done it in faith. And if he did not so (as he did not) he did not what he was commanded. And therefore you cannot hence prove a Right in Judas by any grant, to the separated sign, while he was destitute of the faith which by his action was professed Re∣ceiving

the Sacrament as a Sacrament is an actual profession o•• faith: And you can never prove that Christ commanded Juda to lye, by professing the faith which he had not; but only that he commanded him at once to Believe and thus profess it. He that will have men compelled to come in (to the Church) intend∣eth that they must bring a wedding garment: or else they shall hear, how camest thou hither?

You apprehend John Timpsons words to be apposite, which imply a contradiction, or touch not the point: If the right Ob∣ject be really believed (even that which is the full Object of sa∣ving faith) that very belief is saving, and proveth the holiness of the person.

To the Twelfth I answer. General and special Grace, I resol∣vedly maintain. But when will you prove that it is a part of Ge∣neral Grace to have a proper Title given by God to the Sacra∣ments which seal up the pardon of sin actually where there is such Title? To have the universal conditional promise (or co∣venant ex parte Dei) enacted, and promulgate and offered the world, with many incitements to entertain it, is General Grace: But so is not either our actual heart-covenanting, the Remission of our sin, nor such a proper Title to the sign of both.

When you tell us of the Worlds Potential, and the visible Chur∣ches actual Interest in General Grace, you give us (pardon the truth) a meer sound of words that signifie nothing, or nothing to purpose. You cannot call it General Grace Objectively; as if the Saints had a particular Objective Grace, the rest a General: For Generals exist not but in the individuals. It is therefore the General conditional promise or gift, which you must mean by General Grace: This is to the world (without) indeed but an offer: But is it any more to any of the unbelievers or unregene∣rate within? what can be the meaning of [an actual Interest in a conditional promise] which all the hearers have not, and yet is short of the true actual Interest of them that perform the con∣dition? I feel no substance in this notion, nor see any light in it. I confess there is a certain possession that one such man may have more then others; but as that is nothing to proper Title, so it is not the thing that Sacraments are to seal.

I have not Mr. Hudsons book now by me: but your solution by the two sives had need of some sifting. Its one thing to ask what is the end of Sacraments quoad intentionem praecepti: and another thing to tell what eventually they produce. I do not believe that the sive that brings men into a state of Grace is in the hands of God only, so as if he used not Ministers thereto. Ministers are said in Scripture to convert and heal, and deliver and save men.

To your 13^th and 14^th and last, I answer. That we easily confess that the covenant under the new Testament is better than the old: but this makes nothing for you, nor do you prove that it doth: the force of the first section of your book, as it may be the matter of an Objection, I have answered before. As to your Authorities I say, 1. Mr. Vines saith nothing which pro∣veth any approbation of your opinion: whether Mr. Burgess do, I leave to himself, for I know not certainly. All that I know of, since Dr. Ward is Mr. Blake, Mr. Humphrey, and John Timpson; and John Timpson, Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Blake. Your 3^d and 4^th Sections need no more answer I think than what is al∣ready given. You needed not these pillars to support that point which is the design of your Treatise.

To these I find you add another, the greatest of all, pag. 611. which you say sinks deep into you: but if reason will do it, I will pluck it up by the roots; partly by desiring you to peruse what I have twice or thrice before answered to it, and partly by adding as followeth; That 1. If a man by mistaken doubt∣ings shall keep himself away from a Sacrament, that doth not destroy his Title to it or the Grace signified, nor is it any ones fault but his own. I therefore deny your Minor: It is not this doctrine that cuts off doubting Christians from the Sacrament, but themselves that do culpably withdraw. To your Prosyllo∣gism; I deny the Major: that doctrine which concludes it sin in the doubtful Christian to Receive, doth not cut him off: For it concludeth it not his sin to Receive in it self, but to Re∣ceive doubtingly: so that it is not Receiving, but Doubting, that is properly his sin: and withall we say, that it is his Duty to Receive, and his greater Sin not to

Receive than to Receive. And though an erring Consci∣ence doth alwaies ensnare, and so create a necessity of sinning which way soever we go, till it be rectified, yet its a greater sin to trespass against a plain precept, than against an erring Con∣science in many cases. But the main stress lyeth on your proof, which is from Rom. 14.23. [Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.] But I could wish you would consider it better, before you press home that Text to the same sence against all other duties as you do against this, lest you leave God but little service from the Church. 1. It is one thing to doubt about indifferent mat∣ters, such as Paul speaks of, as eating, &c. For there he is con∣demned if he eat; because he is sure it is lawful to forbear; but not sure that it is lawful to eat. But press not this upon us in case of necessary duty. If God command me to pray, praise or communicate, my doubt will not justifie my forbearance; and though it entangle me in sin, it cannot disoblige me from duty; but I shall sin more if I forbear.

You say [If it be sin for the unregenerate to Receive, then cannot the doubting Christian be perswaded, and consequently sinneth.] Ans. True: but thats not long of the doctrine, but of his error: and it is the case of all practical errors; which will not therefore justifie you in blaming the doctrine: its the unavoidable effect of an erring Conscience. And again I say, he sinneth more in forbearing.

Whereas you conclude this Argument to be convincing, I have told you before why it convinceth not me: but to your selves I would ask, whether it do not also convince you that your own doctrine is as unsufferable? For I am past doubt that not only most Christians, but even most doubting Christians have more know∣ledge that they have true justifying faith, than the rest of the world have, that they have true Dogmatical faith. Though the wicked doubt less, because they believe and regard it less, yet in∣deed they have not only far more cause to doubt of the truth of their Dogmatical faith, but have less true knowledge of it. At least many of them its thus with, when so many true Christians do as much doubt of their Dogmatical faith, as of any. Now what will you do with all these? If you take their

faith it self (though common) to be their Title, then they must according to you, all keep a way, while they doubt of it: And if it be but the verbal profession of that Dogmatical faith that is their Title, before God, and their own Conscience, then any infidel may make himself a Title at pleasure by a lye, and the bare opus operatum of speaking the words which he never be∣lieved, but derideth the sence while he uttereth the terms. As you will save your own Communicants from condemning themselves then for want of Assurance of their Lower faith, so shall you direct us to do by ours.

I will only add this Question, What Description must that man give of the faith short of Justifying, which entitles to Bap∣tism, who takes Justifying faith it self to lie but in Assent? You know my meaning: It will be certainly another kinde of faith, than Mr. Blake describeth that such a man must require.

I had thought I had done with you at this time: and this day I received a Book of Mr. Prins writing, containing the fruit of your Doctrine; and therein I finde a passage of yours cited from pag. 125. which makes me think it may deserve further consideration than I thought to have taken of it.

You say [

Giving and Receiving being Relata, all those Texts that prove it the duty of any to Receive the Sacrament, doth eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them, or ad∣mit them; because posito uno Relatorum, ponitur alterum.

]

Answ. Must Logick do the deed at last? If so, it will give us leave to distinguish between Relata secundùm dici & secundùm esse; simplices & duplices relationes, &c. Ponitur autem hoc unum Relatorum vel in esse, vel in debito: If you speak of the former, then you know 1. that our Giving is not effectual Giving, but Offer∣ing, when it goes before Receiving: and 2. that as scibile may be sine scientiâ, as existent; so Offering may be without Receiving, though not Receiving in our present sense without Offering: therefore one of these may be put without the other. But I suppose it is Debitum offerendi, & recipiendi, which you think are thus related. But 1. here the debitum offerendi goes first, and the debitum recipiendi comes after, and is but conditional and not actual, till the very act of oblation. You may be bound to Of∣fer

your people the Sacrament, and not perform your duty: they are not bound to Receive it, when you are bound to Offer it; but only on condition or supposition that you actually do Of∣fer it: so that it is not your duty and theirs that are connexed as Relata: else they should be bound to Receive that which is not offered them; for you may neglect your duty. Nor is it your actual Offering and their actual Receiving that are inseparably connexed as perfect Relates; for you may offer it, when it shall be refused.

But you'l say, [

At least the thing intended stands good; that posito recipiendi debito ponitur etiam debitum offerendi.

] I an∣swer: Not alwaies so neither, unless you take the Duty of Re∣ception to be actual and absolute, and not conditional: For you may be bound to Receive on supposition that I offer: both this and many other things which I am not bound to offer: Much less am I eo nomine (as you strongly say) obliged to deli∣ver it to you. You may be obliged to give me Thanks, suppo∣sing I bestow a Benefit on you: and your thanks hath relation to my Benefit: and yet I do not yet understand that I am eo no∣mine obliged to give you that Benefit, because you must be thankful if I do. Your Obligation to receive, is plainly con∣sequential and hypothetical, supposing I actually offer it: and that cannot so necessarily infer the duty of Offering. For I make little doubt to prove, that in many Cases when the Mini∣ster sinneth in his Offer, it is yet the Peoples duty to receive it if he do offer it. The Scribes and Pharisees might unjustly usurp the Chair of Moses, and yet it may be the peoples duty to hear them. The Priests may usurp their place, and yet the cleansed Leper may be bound to shew himself to them. Nero may sin by asking Tribute, when it may be my duty to give it him if he ask it. If Mr. Prin had thought that your Argu∣ment would justifie a Thief in taking his purse by the high way, I do not think he would have cited it. Giving and Taking here are Relatives too: If a Thief demand your purse, resolving to kill you if you deny it, it may be your duty to Give it, to save your life; when in my opinion it is not eo nomine his duty to Demand or Take it.

Well! but this is not the chief part of my answer to you. If you had laid better grounds for it, and well limited it, I might well grant you, that when the People are bound to Receive, it implyeth the Ministers duty to offer it them. But then you must take duty as you finde it entirely, at least essentially, and you must not cut off a piece of a duty; yea, leave out the essenti∣als, and turn it into a sin. God commandeth people first to Re∣pent and Believe, and then to profess it by words and sacramen∣tal actions, and therewith receive the seals of his special grace. This is your Duty: Perform your duty so far as is antecedent to mine, and I shall confess that mine will follow, and I must offer you the Sacraments. But if you will refuse to repent or Believe, or to profess that you do so, in a credible sort, or will by word or life profess that you do not so, and yet will demand the Sacrament, you do not your duty, and so I am not obli∣ged. Prove that it is a mans duty to receive the Sacraments without Faith and Repentance (yea or a credible Profession of them,) or to profess by that Reception that he Takes Christ and Believeth in him, when it is a lie, and then you say some∣what. All men are bound mediately to receive the Sacrament; that is, first to seek after the Word, and then to hear it, and then to believe and repent, and then to seek the Sacraments: but it followeth not that they may do the last first, and receive before they repent.

Moreover, as the Receiver is bound ad ordinem & modum, and not simply and any how to receive: so I am bound ad ordinom & modum, and not any how to give. And therefore I must first know my call to it as a Pastor, and I must do my best to help the people to a due preparation, and I must do it Decently, in Or∣der, and to Edification: and the miss of one of these may turn the duty into a sin. I am not therefore of your opinion, as you next express it, that [there is as many Scripture precepts and presidents to deliver the Sacrament to all, as to any, supposing them within the Church, and neither unintelligent or excommunicate.] If this were true, then 1. If any of the Parish will say, Sir! I am none of your Flock; I renounce your Pastoral over sight; but yet I will have the Sacrament from you; it seems I must be

forced to do the office of that Relation where it is disclaimed: And if all the Anabaptists or Separatists of some neighbour-Church demand it of me, I must give them all the Sacrament: or if all the Parishes about stock in to me, or a thousand strangers, I must give it them all; or if the Parishioners will refuse to speak to me, and to be personally instructed, and one will have it leaping, and singing, and laughing; and others will have me bring it them from house to house, I must give it to them all; and why not, if they swear and curse when they demand it, or profess to take it meerly to ensnare me? For none of these are supposed un∣intelligent or excommunicate.

But I find you take up this Reason before in another sort, sect. 2. pag. 5. Having given a touch about Arminius so doubly defective of ingenuity, as shews you to be but a man, (of which more in due place) you add [

This doctrine enforceth them to di∣stinguish between what gives Right, as to a mans own part, to Church-membership and Ordinances, and that which gives Right to be admitted: whereas the truth is, these are Relata, quorum posito & sublato uno ponitur & tollitur alterum. Besides, there is this great inconvenience it runs down right into, that the Mini∣ster shall be bound to administer the Ordinances (particularly the Sacrament) unto people, when they are bound upon pain of damna∣tion not to take them.

]

To all this I answer: 1. I do not think you ever read such a distinction as you here frame: at least not from him, whom (you know) I have reason to think you intend. Doubtless, he that hath Right to be admitted, hath also in eodem foro a Right on his own part to Ordinances. This is not fairly done: Indeed a Right of Admission may be in the Minister, (who is another subject) when yet the party hath no Right (of the same sort) to be admitted, or to seek or Receive.

But we must once more consider your Canon de relatis. And to what is said before, let me deal plainlier with you, and tell you that the things in question are not Relata: For though actual Giving and Receiving have some kind of Relation, yet several Rights, viz. the Jus dandi, & Jus accipiendi, are not Relates. Shew us if you can, how Jus ad Jus refertur.

Moreover, the Distinction which is used by those whom you here oppose, is (not as you feign it, but) between [a Right Coram Deo to claim and receive the Sacraments] and [a Right or Duty of the Minister to give it upon claim or demand.] Now the former Right is actual and positive; the later but sup∣positive: Demanding or seeking is supposed to go before my giving, and my right and duty to give: And I think (according to my small skill in Logick) Demanding and Giving are no in∣separable Relates; and I am content that any beggar at your door be Judge: This or nothing you must prove to your pur∣pose. And if you prove it, I may the next time I see you de∣mand all your Estate and Learning; and what will you do then? And (with submission to the Judgement of better Lawyers, es∣pecially the Learned Citer of your words) I conceive that [a Right of delivering on supposition of a demand or claim] doth not so necessarily suppose a Right to demand and claim, as one Relate supposeth its Correlate. If a man demand your coat (upon terms of violence) you may give him your cloak also; and yet no more justifie his demand, than you justifie his smi∣ting you by turning the other cheek. But if I should be mi∣staken in these Law-matters, I must remember Mr. Prin, that when ever he delivereth to souldiers the key of his house to pre∣vent the breaking open the doors, or delivereth them his Arms or moneys to save his life, or a contribution to save the rest, he justifieth their Right to claim all this. And by the same rule when ever he went to prison at their command, he justified their right of commanding him: For Commanding and Obeying are as much Relates, as Demanding and Delivering are.

By this time you may see what is become of the [Grievous in∣convenience] which you dreamed we were running downright into. I hope you would not perswade the World that ever we taught, that it is our duty to give Effectively, which ever causeth a reception, nor yet to deliver the Sacraments, but on supposi∣tion of their claim or seeking, to any such men; nor yet to per∣swade them to claim or seek them in statu quo, in their present unbelief and impenitency, with a false profession of the contra∣ry.

And then do you indeed count it so grievous an inconve∣nience that we should be bound [to give it to an unjust claimer on supposition he demand it, on a lying profession of Faith and Repentance, which yet is credible to me] and yet that he deserveth damnation for his lying profession and unjust claim and receiving. If the Iliaca passio were common in London, and this miserere provoked some rich Physitian to so much compassi∣on, as to deliver to his servant a gold bullet to swallow for the Cure (which is reputed so good a medicine) and many come for them that are really sick, and swallow the bullet, and it saves their lives; but many others counterfeit the disease through co∣vetousness of the gold, and the servant believing them, dilivereth them the bullets; do you think here the servant did more than his duty, when he is not able to judge who dissembleth, and the Physitian thus leaveth it to him? Or do you think that the covetous dissemblers had coram donatore a just claim, supposing him to be able to discern their deceit? Or is here such a Grievous inconvenience as you imagined? I think not.

And as for the inextricable difficulties which you think this leads into, another may see the way out of them, when you do not; and he may as confidently conceive that the difficulties and inconveniences of your way are far more.

As for that part of your Book which owneth Church-Disci∣pline, and the power of the Keys, I give you thanks for it, and assure you if we could but see it practised, even less rigorously than the ancient Churches have practised it, when there was no coersive power of violence to enforce it, but rather the sword of persecutors to discountenance it, we should not trouble you with Contests for any other suspension, For my part I blame many of the suspenders as heartily as you do; but it is not for doing too much, but for doing too little, and in disorder. And I hope you that are for Excommunicating where others do but suspend, (though Mr. Prin can tell you that even that is [in truth an actual Excommunication, without any precedent cita∣tion, articles, legal proceeding, hearing, sentence, &c.] Ap∣pend.) will do more than they, and not less, according to this principle. And if you will needs believe that you are not au∣thorized

to do it (a ready way in this age to put off some trou∣blesome work) I hope you will seek to them that you think have Authority: If it be in a meeting of Ministers, make use of them: If in a Bishop, use him if you have one, if not, procure one. For me thinks men that own the necessity of Discipline, should do their best to procure the exercise of it.

And as for that Book of Mr. Prins, which occasioned me to say the more to you on these passages, though I highly ho∣nour the Author's name, and disown the way of his Vicar A. against whose way he principally intendeth it; yet I must say that his writing shews me, as well as his Icon, that

All flesh is grass: the best men vanity —

And what the Church and World must suffer, if the best men had the ruling of it. That all ministers who will not give the Sacraments to all their Parishioners (legally qualified and desi∣ring the same) p. 4. should be used as he directeth, viz. their Tithes withheld by the people, themselves imprisoned, and eject∣ed, I cannot wish; especially if I consider what the legal qua∣lification is, and if I believe him (here) that no Ordinance can be made without the consent of King, Lords, and Commons, and that the Ordinances wanting these are meer Nullities in Law. These evils which I foresee, go not down so easily with me as with that pious Author: 1. That hereby the greatest part of the ablest godly Ministers in England (as far as I am able to learn) must be turned out and imprisoned: 2. And then the Churches either left destitute, or possessed by ignorant, drunken, scondalous men; there being not worthy men of his judgement to supply them. 3. And how many thousand souls may perish ever∣lastingly? 4. And Gods worship be abused, and his name dishonoured through the Land. 5. And the great hopes of godly people frustrate concerning the prosperity of the Church as to posterity; and their joy turned into sorrow. 6. And the enemies have their ends. 7. And would be able to tell us that where the Bishops cast out one able Minister, they have cast out many. 8. That even the men whom Mr. Prin most intend∣eth,

should have so much to say for their former resistance and usage of such men as he; as to say [You see now what men these are, and what desolating cruel works they would make, if it had fallen to their Lot to govern.] 9. That even the multitude of sober Godly men, should have such a temptation, to rejoyce at that which once they lamented, even that such as Mr. P. are kept from power, and that they have escaped so great a calamity as he here designeth them. 10. That indeed such a spirit of violence should be found in so good a man, that hath tasted of so much persecution himself, as to endeavour to imprison and eject all the Ministers in England, that think the Law of God is stricter then the Laws of England, (stand∣ing as heretofore) in point of Qualification of Receivers whom we must admit. 11. That the Quakers, who are now crying down Tithes, should be so much furthered in their design, as to have the people taught to detain them by Law; and they that are crying down the Ministry, should be so far directed to eject them. 12. And that the multitude of obstinate, rebellious people, that will scorn to come to a Minister, or hear him speak to them personally, or will live in many notorious Vices (which the Law enabled us not to use Discipline against) or the ignorant that know not who Christ is, God or man, nor will be accountable to us of their un∣derstanding the Essentials of Religion, but watch all ad∣vantages to defame their Ministers, and hinder their doctrine, and detain their maintenance, and get them out; I say, that these should have now directions put into their hands, for non-payment of Tithes, and for imprisoning and ejecting them: All these things I confess are grievous to me; though I believe that the principal intention of the Author was, to direct some better men, that might be wronged by the over∣much rigor of some Minister, that was guilty of unwarran∣table separation: But good meanings will not warrant such attempts. Were I of Mr. Prin's Judgement against suspension from Sacraments, I think yet I should rather choose to be sus∣pended in another sort my self, than be guilty of Imprison∣ing and Ejecting all the Ministers in England, that gave not

the Sacraments to all their Parishioners, according to the Laws which never were repealed by the threefold consent of Kings, Lords, and Commons.

And herein I see what one bad opinion or principle in practicals will do, even in the best and most experienced men; and what actions must be expected from the best man, if his Judgement be mistaken: And I see also whether the Doctrine of Common Admission leadeth.

Notes

• Second Vin∣dication, pag. 6, 7, 8.